Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 161 to 169 of 169

Thread: Charges dropped against General Flynn

  1. #161

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    If only Clinton was caught lying
    Happened at least four times lol

  2. #162
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,829

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Barr certainly is trying his hardest. He will be called on for more before this is over.
    The charges brought against Flynn were part of a partisan drive to feed the Russiagate conspiracy (which was eventually exposed as fraudulent by the Mueller report). Senior FBI personnel, including Comey and Strzok (both of whom were sacked for their lack of impartiality), knew perfectly well that Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador was legitimate pursuant to his authority as a member of the transition team.

    Being a foreign agent typically makes one a foreign agent. Again, I can only imagine if this was a Dem administration. It would be a night-and-day difference, I swear.
    You're conflating the Turkish connection (which was also non-criminal) with the now dismissed charges. The allegation that Flynn made false statements to the FBI relates to a conservation he held with Sergey Kislyak; it had nothing to do with his prior work in Turkey. Barr withdrew the case because, on the basis that the FBI knew that Flynn's conversation was legal, his remarks to investigators - true or otherwise - did not falsify or conceal a material fact (as per C18S1001).
    Last edited by Cope; June 25, 2020 at 09:29 PM.

  3. #163

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michae...administration.

    FBI was pretty sure they had evidence he has had contact with people he said he didn't have contact with at the time and then he plead to lying about it. He also moved goal posts when initially confronted:
    Well I'm aware of the story so far. My problems with it are thus:

    It seems the best evidence of Flynn lying, is his guilty plea. He is now seeking to withdraw the plea. So, this evidence is suspect.

    The second best evidence are the testimonies of FBI agents. According to all the released docs, however, it seems one (or more?) of the interviewing agents thought Flynn wasn't lying. In another instance agents seemed to be discussing entrapping Flynn. Apparently their methods were also unorthodox. On top of all that there are claims that the FBI was pressuring Flynn's legal counsel, and threatened to go after Flynn's son. A ~couple agents involved in putting together the case on Flynn have since been dismissed, allegedly for lying. So, this evidence too is suspect.

    Originally I kind of assumed there was an actual recording of Flynn's call(s) vs what he said in the interview, but seems all we've got is the testimonies of shady people. Idk, bit of a stretch to say he's definitely guilty.
    "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson


    In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.

  4. #164

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Again, you would be frothing if this was a Dem administration but you love it when it's the GOP pouring corruption down your gullet.
    When Democrats are in power, I wish they would look at everything Trump and the Republicans have done and assume they can do the same:

    Declare the president and his henchmen to be above the law.
    Use executive privilege to block compliance with subpoenas.
    Bribe a foreign government for personal gain.
    Declare anything they want to be national emergencies.
    File dozens of frivolous lawsuits and subpoenas solely to harass those they dislike.
    Pass laws and sign EOs designed to punish those that criticize them.
    Send armed thugs to intimidate Republican state legislators with the threat of violence if they don't vote a certain way.
    Send cops to beat up and gas protestors.

    And if Republicans cry foul at any of that they are hypocrites.
    Last edited by Coughdrop addict; June 26, 2020 at 03:32 AM.

  5. #165

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan
    Easy: he lied to the FBI and VP about being a foreign agent and contacts he had made. Just try to imagine if this was someone in a Clinton administration; you guys would be frothing at the mouth.
    I will answer some of this in a response to coughdrop.


    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan
    The hoops you guys try to jump to claim immunity from the law.


    Flynn literally lied about being a foreign agent. Again, you would be frothing if this was a Dem administration but you love it when it's the GOP pouring corruption down your gullet.
    He wasn’t being charged with lying about being a foreign agent, or for being a foreign agent. You wrote what he did wrong here:
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan
    FBI was pretty sure they had evidence he has had contact with people he said he didn't have contact with at the time and then he plead to lying about it. He also moved goal posts when initially confronted:
    After The Washington Post published their story, Flynn's spokesman released a statement on February 9 tempering Flynn's denial, describing that Flynn "had no recollection of discussing sanctions", but also "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up".
    The FBI knew that Flynn had contact with Kislyak, and Flynn never denied that. After all, that’s what they went to talk to him about. He was accused about lying in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. But here is where I see some problems:
    1.They (FBI) already knew what was said in his conversations with Kislyak, so if he did something illegal, why didn’t they just go after him? The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t think he was lying, so where is the problem?

    2.The answer to question 1. is this:
    “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote. “If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.”
    This should bother you and everyone else!

    3.Going after Flynn for the Logan Act? Why didn’t they go after John Kerry or so many others? No one has been convicted because of that law. He was talking to Kilyak (again because the FBI knew what he said) it was about the Russians not retaliating for Obama’s sanctions, is that a bad thing?

    4.And what of Yates and others? She says one thing in May 2017, then quite another thing in Jan. 2018. These are very bothersome things.

    At first I thought Flynn should be jailed, because of the lack of information we had. But after more information came out... the FBI has allot of explaining to do. This shouldn’t be a political situation at all, but one of right and wrong. They went after Flynn and used entrapment and his son to get to him. Then to top things off, his original lawyers may have done some very unsavory things to his case. I will say this as well, if his son did something wrong and it deserves jail time, then he should get jail.

  6. #166

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Then you should easily be able to link to it. Note that "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy whose cousin is totally in the Illuminati." nonsense will only get you laughed at even more than usual.
    Your post was in regards to B.W.’s statement about voter fraud, and I did put down a source.
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15924392
    Seems to me you just chose to ignore the sources, so what good does it do? I’m still waiting for a reply:
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15924397
    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    When Democrats are in power, I wish they would look at everything Trump and the Republicans have done and assume they can do the same:

    Declare the president and his henchmen to be above the law.
    Use executive privilege to block compliance with subpoenas.
    Bribe a foreign government for personal gain.
    Declare anything they want to be national emergencies.
    File dozens of frivolous lawsuits and subpoenas solely to harass those they dislike.
    Pass laws and sign EOs designed to punish those that criticize them.
    Send armed thugs to intimidate Republican state legislators with the threat of violence if they don't vote a certain way.
    Send cops to beat up and gas protestors.

    And if Republicans cry foul at any of that they are hypocrites.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    When Democrats are in power, I wish they would look at everything Trump and the Republicans have done and assume they can do the same:
    Both sides are guilty of this. But the Democrats don’t even wait to be in power before they start with corruption such as the Russian collusion hoax, the Ukranian hoax, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Declare the president and his henchmen to be above the law.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...re-a-democrat/
    To many to list on the above link.
    https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ing-presidency
    But don’t just take it from me. Liberal law professor Garrett Epps (a professional acquaintance) admits that “even for those like me who admire Barack Obama, the constitutional record is disturbingly mixed. Obama leaves the Constitution weaker than at the beginning of his terms.” Epps labels Obama’s posture to be one of “aggressive compliance,” torturing statutory language as far as it can go in order to avoid constitutional claims.
    And it gets worse from there in that link.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...yCH_story.html
    Liberals are situational ethicists regarding presidential warmaking: Imagine their comportment if Obama’s predecessor — who got congressional authorization for his uses of force — had behaved as Obama is doing regarding Libya. Most conservatives, who preen about their commitment to keeping government on a short leash, seem anesthetized by the administration’s sophistries.
    This was mentioned in the Cato link, I just liked the part in bold being oh so true.
    https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/obam...onal-security/
    Laws exist for a reason — to be enforced, not to be ignored. That is the theory, but under the Obama administration, it is certainly not practice.
    Much like our porous southern border, the border between executive and legislative powers has been obscured, if not outright eliminated. This was by design, with the President admitting quite candidly: “It is the belief of this administration… that we can’t wait for action on the Hill.”
    https://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/Oba.../25/id/387387/
    As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.
    It’s not whether you agree with the subject or not, you cannot go beyond the scope of your position (President) yet Obama has multiple times, as did Clinton.
    There are many others to put in here, but there are more accusations to address and I don’t want to take up more space on things you are unlikely to read.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Use executive privilege to block compliance with subpoenas.
    Here is a few:
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ongress-n66285
    So, I’ve compiled nine examples of fights over subpoenas or testimony during the Obama years. The point here is that fights between the executive branch and the legislative branch over executive privilege are nothing new. Despite the rhetoric that the Trump administration’s fighting back against Democrat witchhunts being unprecedented, Barack Obama spent eight years fighting with Congress over their exercising their rights to oversight.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/u...-congress.html
    In a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the president’s top lawyer said that as a member of the executive branch the political director, David Simas, had immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Bribe a foreign government for personal gain.
    https://www.investors.com/politics/e...t-think-again/
    So far so good. Except, "Over the next seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals with those same foreign governments."
    https://thegreggjarrett.com/remember...investigation/
    Trump’s got the last laugh now as yet another scandal involving Burisma holdings has just been unearthed
    Turns out that corruption is still very much alive and well today. Ukrainian prosecutors say they have “intercepted a multimillion-dollar bribe intended to be used in an effort to stop a criminal investigation into the founder of Burisma Holdings” reported the Washington Examiner.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinto...nt_controversy
    Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders, during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, criticized Clinton for a conflict of interest: "Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships? Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do".[58] Republican Senator John Cornyn, who voted for Clinton's confirmation in 2009, says that she duped Congress, that he now regrets his vote, and that President Obama should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether donors to the foundation gained improper access at the State Department.[12]


    An August 30, 2016 editorial by The New York Times opined there was no proof that donors to the foundation received special favors from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.[59] However, the Times added that there was reason to question where the Clinton Foundation ended and where the State Department began.
    Please note that the NYT article is op-ed.
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...nt-care-n71059
    It’s amusing to think that the reason why Democrats are holding impeachment hearings now is over conditions for aid with Ukraine, when that is exactly what Joe Biden, with the support of the Obama administration, did with the very same country. We know this because we have video evidence of Joe Biden bragging about the quid pro quo to protect Burisma Holdings from being investigated while his son Hunter was sitting on the board making over $50,000 a month to sell access to the White House.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Declare anything they want to be national emergencies.
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list...ry?id=60294693


    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    File dozens of frivolous lawsuits and subpoenas solely to harass those they dislike.
    https://republicanags.com/2018/02/01...rump-35-times/
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democrats continue to sue the Trump administration at a record clip. The sheer volume of lawsuits filed this year by Democratic attorneys general is staggering.


    Democrats have a singular focus: advancing their partisan political agenda. This is not about the Constitution or the rule of law. Democratic attorneys general in twenty-two states are operating political machines out of their offices. That should scare everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Pass laws and sign EOs designed to punish those that criticize them.
    https://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19...on-presidency/
    After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2008...legal-action-o
    Fairfax, VA-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has sent threatening letters to news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio to stop airing ads exposing his anti-gun record sponsored by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF).
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...s-over-pro-tru
    In a statement the PAC’s spokesperson Hogan Gidley mocked the legal maneuver. “Hillary’s just angry because the ad is impactful, it’s working and it speaks directly to the women she’s been trying to con for years. Hillary’s own campaign said when Michelle Obama speaks out, ‘it has a real impact,’ and indeed, we agree – because it was Mrs. Obama who correctly pointed out Hillary Clinton 'certainly can’t run the White House,’” Gidley said.


    A spokesperson for the Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.
    There is of course Bill Clinton sending the cease and desist letter to a Canadian actor who poses as him.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...zing-newsrooms
    In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.
    Other than the fact that Obama has an extraordinarily ugly legacy of anti-press behavior, he made some great points Friday. He never actually called the news media the “enemy of the people.” He and his lieutenants simply prosecuted and spied on reporters, all while claiming Fox is "an opponent" and not “ really a news station.”
    In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."


    The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Send armed thugs to intimidate Republican state legislators with the threat of violence if they don't vote a certain way.
    Yes the Democrats do send thugs to intimidate Republican state legislators, glad you recognize that. Here is some proof of that:
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ng-they-hire-/
    Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...on-republicans
    In June, California Rep. Maxine Waters called for threats and attacks on Trump team members. She said, "If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."
    Hillary Rodham Clinton said Democrats shouldn’t be civil to Republicans until they win back control of Washington. She said, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.”
    https://www.amren.com/commentary/201...-trump-voters/
    In an MSNBC interview, Rep. Castro denied responsibility for any harassment. MSNBC host Willie Geist told the congressman that some of the donors are already being harassed. Many of them were retired or were housewives — not powerful special interest groups. Mr. Geist asked whether it was right for Rep. Castro to denounce President Trump’s alleged incitement while doing the same thing to these donors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    Send cops to beat up and gas protestors.
    Because the liberal mayors are sitting around and letting looters and thugs hurt and kill people. Just because Obama sat around and did nothing doesn’t mean that Trump should also.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dc-...p-church-visit
    U.S. Park Police reportedly say protesters near the White House were pushed back by riot police on Monday evening because they were attacking police officers, not because of a visit by President Trump to a nearby church that had been set alight the night before.
    Obama rightly criticized looters and thugs as well, he just didn’t say he would take care of it. Trump threatened to do something if the mayors refused to protect the people, but he has never to my knowledge sent police in.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict
    And if Republicans cry foul at any of that they are hypocrites.
    If you look at the recent history of politics, you will notice the Republicans are slow learners at this sort of tact. The Democrats are usually the first to use them and multiple times before the Republicans do so.
    You said all of the above yet with on proof. The ones I want to see proof for are these:
    Send armed thugs to intimidate Republican state legislators with the threat of violence if they don't vote a certain way.
    Send cops to beat up and gas protestors.
    and this:
    Declare anything they want to be national emergencies.
    I don’t know what your trying to say here.
    Last edited by Frostwulf; June 28, 2020 at 12:15 AM.

  7. #167
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,052

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Flynn's lawyer is now claiming that Flynn was targeted because he was planing to investigate corruption at the CIA (think John Brennan). It seems that since Flynn's charges are being dropped there is a lot of speculation on why he was targeted so relentlessly. Brennan's company made billions off of CIA contracts that were, shall we say, suspiciously awarded:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...rs_at_cia.html

  8. #168

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Does American Thinker have an article on when they will declare Flynn to be the next coming of Christ?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

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

  9. #169

    Default Re: Charges dropped against General Flynn

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does American Thinker have an article on when they will declare Flynn to be the next coming of Christ?
    Did you even read the article? This shouldn't be about Republican vs. Democrat at all. This should bother every U.S. citizen, at least those who respect rule of law and fear abuse of power. They (certain government entities) sought to entrap this man for what was a legal meeting (it was his job after all). I want to believe those this doesn't bother are completely ignorant of this situation.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789

Posting Permissions

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