Deranged Rhino Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: You're the one that's been following this closer than anybody. The liberal spin on the Flynn guilty plea is he plead guilty to a lesser crime because of his involvement with the Turkish government? Is that a possible explanation? Sorry, missed this earlier... It was a talking point floated but it's got no teeth. Flynn plead guilty to lying on his FARA forms for FIG (Flynn Intel Group) - which is the most serious charge they could bring on him regarding his lobbying work (in other words, they didn't let the Turkey stuff go in exchange for him pleading guilty to lying, they hit him with it too). Lying on your FARA forms is a felony and Flynn agreed to it (I imagine under pressure). But it's the kind of felony that before Mueller charging Manafort were never prosecuted or enforced. You can retroactively file FARAs with corrections, for example, to avoid a felony. I say all that to make clear there aren't bigger Turkey charges lurking in the shadows for Flynn - his shop was not open long enough for that to happen. The reality is FIG was hired in August of '16 by an alleged Turkey proxy (Inovo) to produce several position papers and a documentary film for $500k. The accusation is that Inovo was a cut out, the money came from Turkey directly and Flynn knew it and failed to register that fact until March of '17. Inovo denies this charge, it's never been proven that they are funded by Erdogan, and even if they were taking money directly from Turkey isn't a crime - only lying about it on a FARA is (and it's a felony). FIG never completed the film, never wrote the position papers - the most they did was let Inovo read an op-ed Flynn published in the Hill before it ran (Flynn didn't take edits from them, simply shared it early). There's certainly issues here - but they're not issues that normally get a K-Street lobbyist charged with felonies. Which is why I think Mueller hit Flynn with Turkey even though the consequences for lying to the FBI are far harsher. I think it was included because it was an example of how K-Street lobbyists have been blurring the lines for years and Mueller needed to establish this as part of his probe to go after (imo) his real targets, Manafort and Podesta Group, for the same thing (which he has as we've seen with the Manafort and Gates indictments - though their FARA violations in the Ukraine are FAR more extensive and criminal than Flynn's. Manafort and Podesta knew they were being paid directly by the Ukrainian government and lied about it numerous times). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Definitely think they are cooperating. Same with Priestap. That would seem to make sense because those two lovebirds are an integral component of connectivity between the decadent Dems and the bogus FISA persecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Is that lying to the FBI? Who doesn't do that these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Did you start the meeting at 2:43pm??? to the best of my recollection that sounds about right.... AHA!!!!! Perjury!!! It started at 2:44pm!!! When you got back the change from your coffee of 92 cents, what was he year of minting on every nickel in the coins? You must answer with specifics, if wrong you have perjeured yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) ....Adam Schiff: Andrew McCabe's firing "may be justified" http://washex.am/2IwFp1 And when you don’t have Adam Schiff… JONATHAN TURLEY: McCabe just made life tough for Comey and the special counsel. . Edited March 19, 2018 by B-Man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 10 hours ago, B-Man said: ....Adam Schiff: Andrew McCabe's firing "may be justified" http://washex.am/2IwFp1 And when you don’t have Adam Schiff… JONATHAN TURLEY: McCabe just made life tough for Comey and the special counsel. . Again, as koko I believe pointed out. He wasn't asked if he had knowledge of leaks. He was asked if he himself was the leaker; Comey has not perjured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 All statements released are lawyer-vaccuumed and very vague and not addressing the matter directly, as they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 So Trump campaign was making use of Face Book info about users. They had a company that used those analytics to target voters. And Trump wanted all the data from all over the country? Ya, that doesn't smell bad. Facebook Under Fire on Two Continents Over Data Misuse By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and SHEERA FRENKEL 5:17 AM ET American and British lawmakers called on Facebook to explain how a political data firm tied to the Trump campaign harvested private data. One state attorney general said she was opening an investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 40 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Again, as koko I believe pointed out. He wasn't asked if he had knowledge of leaks. He was asked if he himself was the leaker; Comey has not perjured. that was only part of it.... Grassley also asked Comey if he had authorized any leaks to which he denied... Either Comey or McCabe perjured themselves.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: He'll be fine. He has a better future ahead of him than the traitors do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: He'll be fine. He has a better future ahead of him than the traitors do You're batting 0-100 so far on this story. Make it 0-101. McCabe will be indicted and prosecuted. Just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're batting 0-100 so far on this story. Make it 0-101. McCabe will be indicted and prosecuted. Just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Care to make it interesting? If McCabe gets indicted within the next 12 months, you have to change your screenname for a whole year to something of my choosing. If McCabe doesn't get indicted within the next 12 months, you pick my screenname for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Care to make it interesting? If McCabe gets indicted within the next 12 months, you have to change your screenname for a whole year to something of my choosing. If McCabe doesn't get indicted within the next 12 months, you pick my screenname for a year. Moving the goal posts? Don't we already have a bet about number of Trump people indicted vs. Obama people to be indicted? I'm winning 5-0, right? I won't make the new bet because I have no idea what's in the IG report and I guess no one does but the IG and Sessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, Tiberius said: Moving the goal posts? Don't we already have a bet about number of Trump people indicted vs. Obama people to be indicted? I'm winning 5-0, right? I won't make the new bet because I have no idea what's in the IG report and I guess no one does but the IG and Sessions. I've been telling you for over a year what's in the IG report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: I've been telling you for over a year what's in the IG report. Ok! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ok! It's true. You've ignored it, but it's all there in the threads. The IG report is going to be devastating to the narrative you've been pumping for over a year. Better stock up on tissues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's true. You've ignored it, but it's all there in the threads. The IG report is going to be devastating to the narrative you've been pumping for over a year. Better stock up on tissues. I’m looking forward to the report. This administration is definitely attempting to “drain the swamp.” I have two questions for you though Rhino. 1. Has trump obstructed justice? 2. Are you confident the people Trump chooses to replace the swamp critters will be any less corrupt or shady? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, gatorbait said: I’m looking forward to the report. This administration is definitely attempting to “drain the swamp.” I have two questions for you though Rhino. 1. Has trump obstructed justice? 2. Are you confident the people Trump chooses to replace the swamp critters will be any less corrupt or shady? 1. I haven't seen any evidence of this. Doesn't mean there isn't any - just that it's not public. The stuff in public they spin as obstruction do not meet that bar. 2. IMO The long term plan isn't to replace one swamp monster with another - it's to restore the peoples' voice in government by removing the swamp creatures entirely. A lot of the "swamp" isn't swampy on their own accord, they were forced into compliance through blackmail or other forms of leverage illegally collected by the IC. That network of control is being dismantled so the elected officials are free to vote as they please. So far, that plan seems to be on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, gatorbait said: Has trump obstructed justice? I'll field this, though I know it was not directed to me: No, he has not. The Chief Executive has the authority to fire whomever he wishes working under him who serve at the pleasure of the President. The President fired James Comey, and he said why he fired him. Comey was "wasting time with Russian nonsense", and the President wanted him focused elsewhere. The President's firing of Comey did not impede or obstruct the ongoing investigation; and if the firing of James Comey rose to the standard of obstruction of justice then there is nothing left to investigate, as the President fired him for the reasons he gave in plain sight, in front of God and the whole world. If firing Comey were obstruction of justice, the President would be being tried for obstruction of justice. But he is not, because it is not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 If Trump fires Mueller would that be obstruction? It seems to me if the president fires anyone who questions him or investigates him we are inching closer to being an authoritative state with dictators. I have never seen this kind of stuff in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, gatorbait said: If Trump fires Mueller would that be obstruction? It seems to me if the president fires anyone who questions him or investigates him we are inching closer to being an authoritative state with dictators. I have never seen this kind of stuff in my lifetime. Mueller works for the executive branch. It's well within Trump's rights to fire him in terms of the letter of the law. The political fallout would be extreme though. But that doesn't make it obstruction. That said, I don't think Mueller will be fired. He's needed still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, gatorbait said: If Trump fires Mueller would that be obstruction? It seems to me if the president fires anyone who questions him or investigates him we are inching closer to being an authoritative state with dictators. I have never seen this kind of stuff in my lifetime. the President is free to fire the Special Prosecutor at any time and for any reason. it had better be for a very good reason though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, gatorbait said: If Trump fires Mueller would that be obstruction? It seems to me if the president fires anyone who questions him or investigates him we are inching closer to being an authoritative state with dictators. I have never seen this kind of stuff in my lifetime. Firing people who "question him" isn't an appropriate way to describe the Trump White House. Trump fires people who can't, or won't, work to further the governing agenda of his Administration; and he replaces those whom have served there purpose within his administration. That's reasonable at worst, and a net positive at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Oh Boy!! Now we know what the "story" is Flynn has to tell https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/04/michael-flynn-cambridge-analytica-disclosure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 35 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh Boy!! Now we know what the "story" is Flynn has to tell https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/04/michael-flynn-cambridge-analytica-disclosure I read that and didn't have an "oh boy" moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: I read that and didn't have an "oh boy" moment. I bet! Working for the firm that used lifted Face Book info to target voters. The firm that was founded by Bannon and had ties to Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 CBS is starting to see what's coming... Quote With Trump declared guilty by Democrats and all but convicted in the press, what happens if Mueller confirms the findings of the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee -- that there's plenty of Trump campaign incompetence, but no collusion? For people who hate or love Trump, it won't matter. They've already made up their minds. But for the majority of casually-political Americans--who already think Washington politicians are worse than lawyers and used car salesmen when it comes to "very low" ethical standards--what will they conclude if they're told that the whole point of the investigation from the beginning was based on a baseless charge? Many are likely to think that if there was no collusion, then the entire story really was the "witch hunt" President Trump keeps telling them it is. He will have turned out to be right, no matter how many other things he did wrong. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-what-if-trump-is-right-and-there-is-no-collusion/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's true. You've ignored it, but it's all there in the threads. The IG report is going to be devastating to the narrative you've been pumping for over a year. Better stock up on tissues. What's true? What did he do? You don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: CBS is starting to see what's coming... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-what-if-trump-is-right-and-there-is-no-collusion/ That scenario scares the Schiff out of liberals. Though if they catch wind that Mueller will find no collusion (and especially if Mueller goes after Obama's people for their corruption), the DNC and their media pets will quickly invent the next anti-Trump storyline to advance their soft-coup. Edited March 19, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I bet! Working for the firm that used lifted Face Book info to target voters. The firm that was founded by Bannon and had ties to Russia. How was it "lifted"? It's how FakeBook works. Quote Indeed, the most alarming aspect of Cambridge Analytica's "breach" is that it wasn't a breach at all. It happened almost entirely above board and in line with Facebook policy. Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge professor, accessed the data of more than 50 million Facebook users simply by creating a survey filled out by 270,000 people. Facebook provided Kogan with the data of anyone who took the survey, as well as their friends' data. In a statement, Facebook said, "Kogan gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels that governed all developers on Facebook at that time." http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/business/facebook-data-privacy-crisis/index.html That's what happens when people give away their personal info willy nilly. I like how Zuck says, hey, we told 'em to delete it. Like you can really delete anything on a computer network. Zuch thinks we're total fools like most of his subscribers. Edited March 19, 2018 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 please trustbust these elements ASAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 55 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: CBS is starting to see what's coming... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-what-if-trump-is-right-and-there-is-no-collusion/ No, I've talked to enough people who are die-hard liberals and enough people on the fence they don't just say well there was something there we just didn't find evidence. Or they'll just say that Trump successfully outmaneuvered the investigation. Or they'll be plenty of other excuses given, because for most people simple mind where there's smoke there's fire 24 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: How was it "lifted"? It's how FakeBook works. http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/business/facebook-data-privacy-crisis/index.html That's what happens when people give away their personal info willy nilly. I like how Zuck says, hey, we told 'em to delete it. Like you can really delete anything on a computer network. Zuch thinks we're total fools like most of his subscribers. The day people find out how big of an !@#$ Mark Zuckerberg is will be a day and which I find great happiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: The day people find out how big of an !@#$ Mark Zuckerberg is will be a day and which I find great happiness He just wants to keep us safe. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: He just wants to keep us safe. LOL It took me three weeks on Facebook to realize it was terrible after someone posted something political. I responded toe their thought with the reasonable and sound argument only to have 10 other people pile on against me. I only got it the following few just in Friends, stay in touch with those who are outside of my area, and mostly family. Other than that is terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: It took me three weeks on Facebook to realize it was terrible after someone posted something political. I responded toe their thought with the reasonable and sound argument only to have 10 other people pile on against me. I only got it the following few just in Friends, stay in touch with those who are outside of my area, and mostly family. Other than that is terrible See, that's the problem - you can't be serious on facebook. Just do what I do on it: make fun of your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts