Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 169

Thread: Charges dropped against General Flynn

  1. #21

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    1. You were factually wrong about the impeachment charge. Not even senior Dem partisans were prepared to impeach the president over an alleged obstruction of justice relating to the Mueller report.
    Cute, but irrelevant to the post.

    2. The subpoena controversy should have been settled by the judiciary. This is how we expect legal disputes between the legislature and the executive to be resolved. The House could have pursued a judgement from the Supreme Court demanding that the WH cooperate with their subpoenas. They chose instead to ask the Senate for a judgement and lost.
    The House pursued impeachment instead of getting the process derailed for months in the courts, and indeed, the Senate chose blind partisanship over ethics.

  2. #22
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Cute, but irrelevant to the post.
    My observation was self-evidently relevant. You tried, and failed, to resurrect the corpse of the Russia allegations by claiming that some had been included in the impeachment articles. This was false.

    The House pursued impeachment instead of getting the process derailed for months in the courts, and indeed, the Senate chose blind partisanship over ethics.
    Your argument that the judicial process "derails" justice speaks for itself. Stop scraping the barrel.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    My observation was self-evidently relevant. You tried, and failed, to resurrect the corpse of the Russia allegations by claiming that some had been included in the impeachment articles. This was false.
    Sure, and how is this relevant to the fact that the Mueller Report was unable to clear the President, or the Mueller Report making multiple links between the Trump Campaign and Russia? The intent of the recent posts was to insinuate that the "Russiagate" theory was disproven. Well that's a strawman. The fact is, the Trump campaign has had multiple contact with Russians, many of their members have been charged or proven guilty, and a thorough investigation has failed to determine whether the Trump campaign and Trump himself conspired to win the US election.

    If the intent was to remind us that the Russia theory was "disproven" or "discredited", you've done the exact opposite.

    Your argument that the judicial process "derails" justice speaks for itself. Stop scraping the barrel.
    Not at all. The fact that the Trump Administration can stonewall any judicial process until the end of the President's term is what derails pursuit of justice. This isn't scraping the barrel, though describing the impeachment as being "rightly thrown out by the Senate", certainly is.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    The Mueller report was a waste in federal resources because it is clear that whatever the democrat morons were trying to advance behind the scenes they couldn't even substantiate the facts and the entire report was revealed as a democrat conspiracy to unseat a duly elected President of the United States. If your position is that "BURR HURR THE MUELLER SRPORT DIDNT EXONERTE DRUMPFARD" congratulations, you are officially lost to the Rachel Maddow conspiracy wing of the democrat party.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    The Mueller report was a waste in federal resources because it is clear that whatever the democrat morons were trying to advance behind the scenes they couldn't even substantiate the facts and the entire report was revealed as a democrat conspiracy to unseat a duly elected President of the United States.
    Lol.

    If your position is that "BURR HURR THE MUELLER SRPORT DIDNT EXONERTE DRUMPFARD" congratulations, you are officially lost to the Rachel Maddow conspiracy wing of the democrat party.
    The DNC cabal that apparently has both Republicans and Democrats in it. I have to pat the DNC on the back. The ancient prophets foresaw the rise of the One True Emperor Trump, and planted sleeper agents into the Republican Party like Mueller, to be activated for just such a contingency. Their plan failed, now none can stop the Reunification Wars.

  6. #26
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Sure, and how is this relevant to the fact that the Mueller Report was unable to clear the President, or the Mueller Report making multiple links between the Trump Campaign and Russia? The intent of the recent posts was to insinuate that the "Russiagate" theory was disproven. Well that's a strawman. The fact is, the Trump campaign has had multiple contact with Russians, many of their members have been charged or proven guilty, and a thorough investigation has failed to determine whether the Trump campaign and Trump himself conspired to win the US election.

    If the intent was to remind us that the Russia theory was "disproven" or "discredited", you've done the exact opposite.
    The Mueller report - salient portions of which I cited - concluded that there was no evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Legally and constitutionally, that is the only relevant finding. No one paid attention to it (or frankly cared) for any other reason. Your insistence that the report really proves the opposite of what it claims is mindless gainsaying; it exposes the fact that you still aren't ready to accept that you were sold a conspiracy theory by a liberal establishment clawing in the dark for excuses.

    Not at all. The fact that the Trump Administration can stonewall any judicial process until the end of the President's term is what derails pursuit of justice. This isn't scraping the barrel, though describing the impeachment as being "rightly thrown out by the Senate", certainly is.
    The WH already had a judgement against it in the subpoena dispute from a federal court. It is highly unlikely that the administration would have been able to "obstruct" a Supreme Court ruling for a year after the initiation of impeachment proceedings. For a comparison, it took the court less than half that time to insist the Nixon comply with House subpoenas in his impeachment hearings. The House Dems chose to prioritize their own timetable over the proper process and they lost. It's time to move on.
    Last edited by Cope; May 08, 2020 at 06:41 PM.

  7. #27
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,952

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Democrats should probably consider this sunk cost and move on. It's not a strong motivator of swing voters.

    Just don't engage with it. Plenty of time to do that either in 1 or 5 years after Trump. It has provided Fox News a wonderful way of bumping the couple of thousand odd deaths a day from Covid-19 off the front page just as they're starting to impact middle America. Timing may or may not be deliberate, but the media switch was.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  8. #28
    RedGuard's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Telmachian mountain range
    Posts
    4,345

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    I knew this Russiagate thing was partisan the moment Mueller was announced.

    And by partisan I mean the deep-state/business interests involved in the national security apparatus versus a candidate they didn't choose ahead of time

  9. #29
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Transcripts of more than 50 previously classified closed-doors interviews relating to the Russia investigation have been released. To the surprise of no one, non of the interviewees, including former Obama era staff (James Clapper, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch etc.) were able to produce any evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and/or the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

    Clapper, a former director of national intelligence and staunch opponent of the president, claimed in 2017 that “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election whilst Lynch, a former AG, claimed she "could not say" if there was any proof to support the conspiracy allegations. Rice noted that "to the best of my knowledge there wasn't anything smoking...I don't recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior -- of conspiracy prior to my departure".

    Despite knowing this, figures like Schiff (who was then the Dems' ranking member on the House Intel Committee) spread misinformation about the probe, repeatedly and falsely claiming that there was clear or "significant" evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump, a narrative which was amplified by his allies in the press.
    Last edited by Cope; May 08, 2020 at 09:53 PM.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The Mueller report - salient portions of which I cited - concluded that there was no evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Legally and constitutionally, that is the only relevant finding.
    Legally, the Mueller Report explicitly did not make a prosecutorial recommendation because it was constitutionally impossible.

    'The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."

    In other words, even if President Trump was guilty of a crime, Mueller is simply unable to make that call.

    [No one paid attention to it (or frankly cared) for any other reason. Your insistence that the report really proves the opposite of what it claims is mindless gainsaying; it exposes the fact that you still aren't ready to accept that you were sold a conspiracy theory by a liberal establishment clawing in the dark for excuses.
    I didn't bring up the report, you did. And a report that ends on, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Nor does it do the President any favors when the man in charge of the report replies Yes as to whether the report establishes sufficient basis for further investigation. I don't need the liberal establishment to tell me anything, the facts are rather self-evident. Multiple members of the Trump Campaign indicted, under investigation, or worse. The President himself not declared innocent by a length investigation into the matter.

    The WH already had a judgement against it in the subpoena dispute from a federal court. It is highly unlikely that the administration would have been able to "obstruct" a Supreme Court ruling for a year after the initiation of impeachment proceedings. For a comparison, it took the court less than half that time to insist the Nixon comply with House subpoenas in his impeachment hearings. The House Dems chose to prioritize their own timetable over the proper process and they lost. It's time to move on.
    The Watergate scandal took months to resolve. Suggesting that the same should be done with Trump's White House is a bad joke. The White House ignored virtually all subpoenas, using a variety of legal arguments to stonewall Congress. The fact that Trump is still in office is because impeachment is ultimately a political matter. As I've said before, the Senate protected Trump out of partisanship, not because of a sound legal defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Transcripts of more than 50 previously classified closed-doors interviews relating to the Russia investigation have been released. To the surprise of no one, non of the interviewees, including former Obama era staff (James Clapper, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch etc.) were able to produce any evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and/or the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

    Clapper, a former director of national intelligence and staunch opponent of the president, claimed in 2017 that “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election whilst Lynch, a former AG, claimed she "could not say" if there was any proof to support the conspiracy allegations. Rice noted that "to the best of my knowledge there wasn't anything smoking...I don't recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior -- of conspiracy prior to my departure".

    Despite knowing this, figures like Schiff (who was then the Dems' ranking member on the House Intel Committee) spread misinformation about the probe, repeatedly and falsely claiming that there was clear or "significant" evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump, a narrative which was amplified by his allies in the press.
    Lol, okay.

    DR. WENSTRUP: Was Pnesident Putin successful in his effont to
    undermine the credibility of the electoral pnocess, in your opinion?

    MR. CLAPPER: I believe -- I believe he absolutely was. I
    believe that they were successful beyond thein expectations in terms
    of sowing doubt and discord about the veracity or sanctity of our
    election pnoces.

    .
    .
    .


    MS. SEWELL: Since the dissemination of the assessment and the
    inauguration, more information about the Russian meddling has emerged.
    Most necently, you were quoted ln the medla saylng that you don't
    believe that the emails associated with the meeting that DonaLd Tnump,
    ln. had took with the Russian Government lawyers ane the only evidence
    of collusion between Dona1d Tnump and the Russians. To the contrary,
    you explained - - and I think this was in Ciphen Bnief . To the contrany,
    you explained that the Russian offer to provide the Tnump campaign with
    negative matenials about their competitons centainly comports with
    traditional Russian tradecraft to give leverage and influence any way
    that they could.
    In this classified venue, why do you believe that mone evldence
    of collusion will emergel
    MR. CLAPPER: WeII, I don't knowthat it wi1l, but I find it hand
    to believe that the entire boundary of evidence here is just bound up
    tn those -- in that emall exchange in early lune of 2Ot6. I just find
    that hand to believe that that was it. That was a one-time anecdote,
    and nothing else happened. I find that hand to accept.


    Yeah. Those transcripts are just completely in favor of Trump.
    Last edited by Love Mountain; May 08, 2020 at 10:43 PM.

  11. #31
    HannibalExMachina's Avatar Just a sausage
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11,318

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    I recall the days when you were hook, line and sinker on Russia Gate. Oh how the turntables...
    i dont recall the days when you could still debate anything but your own strawmen.

  12. #32
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Legally, the Mueller Report explicitly did not make a prosecutorial recommendation because it was constitutionally impossible.

    'The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."

    In other words, even if President Trump was guilty of a crime, Mueller is simply unable to make that call.
    We've been over this repeatedly. No evidence of a conspiracy with the Kremlin was found. Stop clutching at straws. See my above post for details about how the US citizenry was systematically misled by figures like Schiff (and his allies in the press) who incessantly claimed there was significant evidence of collusion when he knew there wasn't any.

    I didn't bring up the report, you did. And a report that ends on, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Nor does it do the President any favors when the man in charge of the report replies Yes as to whether the report establishes sufficient basis for further investigation. I don't need the liberal establishment to tell me anything, the facts are rather self-evident. Multiple members of the Trump Campaign indicted, under investigation, or worse. The President himself not declared innocent by a length investigation into the matter.
    The allegations about "obstructing justice" have nothing to do with whether a conspiracy between Trump and/or the Trump campaign and Russia existed (which is what we were talking about). Either way, even the Dems thought the allegations of obstruction were not substantive enough to warrant initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.

    The Watergate scandal took months to resolve. Suggesting that the same should be done with Trump's White House is a bad joke. The White House ignored virtually all subpoenas, using a variety of legal arguments to stonewall Congress. The fact that Trump is still in office is because impeachment is ultimately a political matter. As I've said before, the Senate protected Trump out of partisanship, not because of a sound legal defense.
    The legal defense was more than adequate. It correctly identified that the articles of impeachment were faulty, that it would be untenable for politicians to be removed for considering their own electoral interests when forming policy or taking decisions and that the questions raised by Ukrainegate were a matter for the electorate, not a court or an impeachment trial. Dershowtiz gave the example of the subordination of US policy toward Syria in 2011/12 to Obama's electoral interests. By demonstrating that personal and political concerns routinely influence decision making at the highest levels of government, he sank the house manager's position that it was somehow an "abuse" for Trump to have had one eye on Biden when forming his attitude toward Ukraine (even though no first hand evidence of the president's motives were ever presented anyway).

  13. #33

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    We've been over this repeatedly. No evidence of a conspiracy with the Kremlin was found. Stop clutching at straws. See my above post for details about how the US citizenry was systematically misled by figures like Schiff (and his allies in the press) who incessantly claimed there was significant evidence of collusion when he knew there wasn't any.
    Ah, so the President was found innocent? My mistake.

    The allegations about "obstructing justice" have nothing to do with whether a conspiracy between Trump and/or the Trump campaign and Russia existed (which is what we were talking about). Either way, even the Dems thought the allegations of obstruction were not substantive enough to warrant initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.
    Whatever political calculations the Democrats made, they are not correlated with the severity of Trump's actions, and those of his cronies. Democrats did not choose their reasons for impeachment because they were objectively the most substantive, but because they believed that those reasons were the most politically advantageous.

    The legal defense was more than adequate. It correctly identified that the articles of impeachment were faulty, that it would be untenable for politicians to be removed for considering their own electoral interests when forming policy or taking decisions and that the questions raised by Ukrainegate were a matter for the electorate, not a court or an impeachment trial. Dershowtiz gave the example of the subordination of US policy toward Syria in 2011/12 to Obama's electoral interests. By demonstrating that personal and political concerns routinely influence decision making at the highest levels of government, he sank the house manager's position that it was somehow an "abuse" for Trump to have had one eye on Biden when forming his attitude toward Ukraine (even though no first hand evidence of the president's motives were ever presented anyway).
    There is no "correct" or "incorrect" when the trial is a political process. The fact that the Republicans won the tug-of-war in the Senate trial by virtue of having more members, does not indicate that the legal defense was correct or incorrect in their assessments. And the fact that the Executive branch was employed in pursuit of the President's personal motives rather than strictly those in the national interest, is precisely why the acquittal of President Trump is so wrong. If we were to take this impeachment as a precedent, then we should have no issue with a Democratic President weaponizing the Executive branch in order to secure more electoral victories for his party. After all, it is all justified by the virtue of being President.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Clapper, a former director of national intelligence and staunch opponent of the president, claimed in 2017 that “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election whilst Lynch, a former AG, claimed she "could not say" if there was any proof to support the conspiracy allegations. Rice noted that "to the best of my knowledge there wasn't anything smoking...I don't recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior -- of conspiracy prior to my departure".
    The conspiracy between Trump and Russia runs even deeper than known and has gotten to Clapper, Lynch, Rice et.al...

  15. #35
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Ah, so the President was found innocent? My mistake.
    Straw clutching. People are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. There is not, nor ever has there been, a need for an investigation to find a suspect innocent. The report - and now these released witness testimonies - show that there was no evidence for a Russian conspiracy. The public was systematically lied to about this by senior Democrats and their friends in the press.

    Whatever political calculations the Democrats made, they are not correlated with the severity of Trump's actions, and those of his cronies. Democrats did not choose their reasons for impeachment because they were objectively the most substantive, but because they believed that those reasons were the most politically advantageous.
    At least you're finally conceding that impeachment was a political (electoral) calculation rather than a gallant crusade to save the Constitution or protect the republic. Took you long enough.

    There is no "correct" or "incorrect" when the trial is a political process. The fact that the Republicans won the tug-of-war in the Senate trial by virtue of having more members, does not indicate that the legal defense was correct or incorrect in their assessments.
    We're talking about the legal defence, not the political one.

    And the fact that the Executive branch was employed in pursuit of the President's personal motives rather than strictly those in the national interest, is precisely why the acquittal of President Trump is so wrong. If we were to take this impeachment as a precedent, then we should have no issue with a Democratic President weaponizing the Executive branch in order to secure more electoral victories for his party. After all, it is all justified by the virtue of being President.
    As per Dershowitz's argument, politicians routinely "weaponize" their power and influence for their own political ends or subordinate the national interest for their personal interests. That's just a fact of life. It's why Obama did nothing when Assad crossed certain "red lines"; it's why Congress refuses(d) to investigate Bush's Iraq War lies; its why the DNC tried to rig the 2016 primaries against Sanders; it's why Pelosi slowed the distribution of relief checks by insisting that they were issued by the states rather than the federal govt; its why a sophisticated disinformation campaign was spun about Russia collusion; and its why, even according to you, the Dems tried to impeach Trump.

    Acting as if the president's attempt to have the Bidens investigated for political reasons (allegedly) was crime of the century worthy of an unprecedented response by Congress is, and always was, partisan nonsense. The issue of whether political manoeuvring is legitimate or not is matter for the electorate, not, as I've said, the courts or an impeachment trial.
    Last edited by Cope; May 09, 2020 at 02:29 PM.

  16. #36
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,522

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Dunno why Russiagate is still a thing, if the Annoying Orange had conspired with Putin he would've live tweeted it.

    Flynn pleaded guilty. How are these charges dropped? I mean I know most administrations put their own people in the DOJ but this seems like a new level of partisanship.

    I felt there was no way a Trump administration could be as corrupt as a Clinton one would've been, looks like I was wrong. From the POV of a US ally this is a very worrying development.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #37

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    So is this going to put everyone in the Obama administration in prison for sure like the time Trump's investigators were finding things we wouldn't believe in Hawaii? Or is this going to put everyone in the Obama administration in prison for sure like the expose of the pizza basement child sex cult?

    Is this a world-shaking scandal like the time the Republicans proved Clinton killed Seth Rich? Or is this a world-shaking scandal like the incredible things Giuliani is finding on Hunter Biden (anyone seen Giuliani around lately?)

    Is this Republicans looking out for America like the time they unveiled a new healthcare plan that was better than Obamacare in every way? Or is this Republicans looking out for America like their swift and decisive action that prevented the US from becoming the worst hit nation of the Covid-19 pandemic?

    Help me out here, I'm having trouble keeping up with the constant lying.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    So, the guy admitted that he lied, since he pleaded guilty to those charges, and those charges are being dropped now, which you guys seem to be celebrating. Interesting standards...
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  19. #39

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    So, the guy admitted that he lied, since he pleaded guilty to those charges, and those charges are being dropped now, which you guys seem to be celebrating. Interesting standards...
    If Trump has given us anything it's a clear look at the bedrock of conservatism, laws only apply to the little people and the other.

  20. #40
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,055

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    More is coming out about the illegal activities that Obama and company engaged in. The charges against Flynn are so unjust it is difficult to believe it took so long for the case to unravel. I think the biggest reason there is the fact that legacy media was (and is) so entrenched in the narrative they created there is no way out for them to be truthful and retain any right to legitimacy.

    Meanwhile, the devoted minions they have brainwashed over the last three and a half years will not listen to the truth because they are so invested in the false narrative. What is scary is just how close we Americans came to losing our country to a socialist minded group of "elites" who think they know better than us "deplorables " and the media was complicit in aiding them.

    Read and be astonished:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...cal-narrative/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •