Obamagate - The Unmasking Of General Flynn
And now we have Obamagate...
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell on Wednesday sent top Republican senators a list of former senior Obama administration officials who appear to have been involved in efforts that “unmasked” former national security adviser Michael Flynn — the list included the name of Joe Biden.
It is now being looked at to ascertain if Barack Obama and his top deputies of illegally targeting the Trump campaign and the incoming Trump administration. In recent days, the president has coined the term “Obamagate” to accuse his predecessor of seeking to undermine him and target his top associates. As of yet this is yet o be proven.
Grenell sent the list of 30 some names, which includes former officials who made “unmasking” requests that might have identified Flynn, to Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) a day after the lawmakers wrote to Grenell and Attorney General Barr calling on them to release information about efforts by Obama administration officials to “unmask” U.S. citizens who were subject to government surveillance.
The names on the list include James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, and former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Thirty-nine people in total are listed, ranging from White House officials to diplomats and Treasury Department officials.
The unmasking requests came about due to officials from the Obama administration investigations into the Trump campaign and transition team’s under the suspicions that they felt Trump and his campaign officials had contacts with Russian officials. These concerns that would culminate in a special counsel investigation that has consumed much of Trump's presidency.
Johnson said his committee will start requesting interviews with some of the former officials listed, including Biden himself.
“This campaign to sabotage this administration — it is outrageous what these officials from the Obama administration did to the incoming administration,” Johnson said. “There are so many questions that need to be answered.”
“The officials listed should confirm whether they reviewed this information, why they asked for it and what they did with it, and answer any other questions that have been raised by recent revelations,” the senators said in a statement. “We are making this public because the American people have a right to know what happened.”
Where do you think Obamagate will lead us? Do you think the matter of unmasking Gen. Flynn will lead to a special council investigation?"There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s."
What does unmasking someone in an Intel report mean?
Still waiting for Trump to show us the crime that he said is "the biggest political crime in American history, by far."Yes, I agree I have not heard ft this all points to any real crimes. I will say the Dem's pulled out all stops trying to get rid of Trump.
They should use all legal methods to rid our country of the dangerous, mentally ill, lying, incompetent sleaze we call "president."
I have differing views in regard to keeping Trump in office. I also have strong feelings about Obama's time in office, it certainly does not involve saying much more than I feel he was ill-fit to do the job he was elected to do. He seemed to be a nice and well-spoken but had little ability to Govern.
Not sure about that, but he keeps most of his promises. I have seen none in my life that can come ever close to his job performance. ( So, one could say the country has been blessed. -- making a funny)
Trump only built that wall because Sam Nunberg, a rabid right wing ideologue suggested he use it for his campaign in the states that are most bigoted like Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma.
What I find amusing is that these are the states that rely most heavily on immigrants to produce their crops. If you were to fly over these rural farm states, you'd see no white landowners out there in the hot sun picking their own crops. So while they are bigoted toward immigrants, they have no problem paying them cheap labor wages.61 miles of a 2500 mile long wall is keeping a promise? Is a bromance with Kim Jung Un that was supposed to stop North Korea's buildup of nukes keeping a promise now that Trump's own Intel has photos of the newest round of North Korean nukes?
Obamacare is still law in the US. Is that keeping a promise made in the first 2016 rally to "get rid of Obamacare" ?
Is creating more jobs "than any other previous administration" keeping a promise now that over 2 million Americans are collecting unemployment in a record number that has broken with that of the Great Depression?
Don't forget: DJT is the Savior of Israel. Tell him the position is taken, somebody - by the guy he claims to walk with.
Because I live in NJ and have been inundated my entire life by NY papers reporting on the Trump family's every move, I have to admit I do not understand the mindset of anyone who would allow someone who has been charged with money laundering to be in the White House.
If we are lowering our standards for presidential candidates to a man who has had over 4400 lawsuits, has partied with a sex trafficker he called "a good friend" and has made personal business deals in violation of the emoluments clause, why not just allow someone like Whitey Bulger to be president?
I hold my country in far higher esteem because I do not live in a dictatorship on my tax dollars.
I agree with you that Trump is pure sleaze. But then, I have had the misfortune of reading and seeing photos of him in his sleaziest moments on the front pages of the NY Daily News and NY Post.And replace him with a mentally ill, lying, incompetent sleaze that is of the Democratic party instead.
So many millions of people willing to accept someone like Biden as the alternative to the person they despise... even though he is exactly all the things they accuse Trump of being.
Americans get the leadership they deserve and the government they have earned.
“For in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, ‘hold office’; everyone of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve.” ~ John Kennedy
It is not about getting rid of Trump. It is about a man who simply lacks the intelligence, reasoning and ability to be a leader of our country.
This is not about politics.It is about right and wrong. Those who support Trump either do not want to know how their tax dollars are being spent or they don't care.
But, if there should be a question about who wants to get rid of whom, why then does Trump go out of his way to refuse to even acknowledge that there is a 2 party system?
He constantly blames Dems and Obama for everything. A man who cannot take blame when he owns it is not a man.
Trump called the epidemic a "Dem hoax." His son Eric claimed last week that the Dems will make the virus disappear after the November election is over.
These are things we heard and saw. Americans who love their country always get rid of someone who tells the press he believes he should "be president for life."Not sure why it is unreasonable for the president to point out prior mistakes of previous administrations that have hindered the country in some fashion or another. If the allegations were not true this would be a poor practice.
Ewert -- "A man who cannot take blame when he owns it is not a man."
I would say the all-important word in your comment is the word --- blame.
Trump is not a politician it's clear he does not play by their rules. I would take him a fool to take the "blame" for other's mistakes, just to be politically correct. I would think that indicates a lesser man, a man of weak character.
Ewert --- "These are things we heard and saw. Americans who love their country always get rid of someone who tells the press he believes he should "be president for life."
I watched the interview FOX did with Eric Trump where he made the comment you referred to. One could read his word in many different ways. I took it as if he feels that the Democrats in some states are using the virus as a political ploy to feed their bases. Itis clear many liberals hope to handle the reopening of their states differently then Republican-leaning states. I feel he was saying one way or the other the day after the election, no matter what is going on with the virus they will find little interest in continuing to have their states closed. So I think he was saying the virus may not disappear, but will not be a political chip by some Dem Governors.
It will be interesting to see how "American's love their country will or won't get rid of President Trump in Nov.
You know how a snowball starts the size of a pea and gets big enough to make a snowman? This is what is about to happen with Trump.
Trump has always believed he is Teflon Don and will never see the inside of a courtroom.
In the last 2 weeks he lost 2 very important cases. The first was in regard to his demand that the emoluments clause of the Constitution be struck down. That was thrown out.
The second had to do with his so called claim of "immunity" with regard to charges against him on a state level. That too was struck down.
So he brought both before his boys on the Supreme Court. I watched the Supreme Court hearing on his right to not have his tax returns released. You can already guess all of the Trump boys on that court were looking for ways to rule in his favor.
But the Governor of NY signed an Executive Order allowing the SDNY to release those documents.
I think it is just a matter of time before Obama, Hillary and MSM are brought to Justice.
I am frankly looking forward to the Republican Party putting President Obama on the witness stand. He will make chopped liver of Republicans who are out to smear him and by association, Joe Biden.
Trump is desperate to remain in the White House because he knows the minute he leaves at least 4400 of those cases against him will send him to prison the minute he is no longer "sitting" in the Oval Office.
Trump also is taking a leaf out of Putin's book. 2012, Putin found a petty charge he used to get rid of his strongest presidential opposition, Novalny. Trump thinks if he gets the DOJ to make a phony case against Obama, by association that puts Biden out of the race and there is no need for an election.
As for General Flynn, if anyone has bothered to do their homework on Flynn, they would know on April 30, 2014, Flynn announced his retirement effective later that year, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position.
He was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency. As anyone who is anyone knows, there is no way to clash with military authorities.
So in an act of childish spitefulness, he began to do business in Turkey without bothering to register with the US as a foreign business agent.
That's illegal. The US must know who is doing business with foreign countries, why and what the precise nature of that business is.
By the time Trump tapped Flynn for his job as National Security Advisor in 2016 during the Trump campaign, Flynn was already doing business without a US registration.
Flynn was a National Security risk because he knew as a member of the military the importance of knowing who is doing business with foreign countries.
The Obama Administration was made aware by Trump that he intended to appoint Flynn as National Security adviser.
The president had every right to unmask Flynn. Here is why: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Why didn't Flynn register in 2016? Why did Flynn wait until he had the Trump appointment in 2017 to register?
Flynn also pleaded guilty twice in a US court of law. This is why I just can't wait for Obama to testify to the Republicans in the Senate so hot to protect Trump.
Obama was never after Trump. He warned Trump about Flynn. The truth is that Trump has hated Obama ever since Trump went top Moscow and brokered a deal with Putin to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, a long held Trump dream.
But when Russia invaded Crimea and the UN allies ordered sanctions against Russia for that brazen aggression, Obama also ordered the Russian sanctions which Trump believed caused Trump to lose his Trump Tower in Moscow.
Back in the 1990s, Trump was quoted in NY papers as saying it was his dream to build "Trump Towers in every major city of the world."Why is President Trump spending his time this way when Hillary Clinton is still not in jail?
I made every attempt to present this thread as non-bias. Just presenting the news report on the unmasking of Flynn. I don't think I presented any false information. I also mentioned Obamagate and that President Trump's accusations in regard to Obama's officials targeting him was not yet proven.
" In recent days, the president has coined the term “Obamagate” to accuse his predecessor of seeking to undermine him and target his top associates. As of yet this is yet to be proven."
Not sure why you have brought Hillary Clinton into this conversation. I would think you are making an attempt to be funny, in light of not wanting to address the subject.Just wondering why Hillary is not in jail. I'm just sitting back and taking my hydroxychloroquine, knowing I'm going to be fine, at least. Still wondering, we resolved Pizzagate right?
I am wondering the same thing... why Hillary has not been in jail for her many years of crime. She has a trail of scams that could have landed her in jail. But her husband was one of our presidents, and she got a pass. But, I always laugh each time I see her screw up her grift, get caught, and back out to plan another scam.
I thought we were promised Hillary would be in jail? As far as I know though, she never actually admitted to any of her crimes.
Are you taking your hydroxychloroquine? It's such good stuff. I haven't got COVID yet, so I know it's working.I was only needed me a few times to fill in at the Hospital. I did not take hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic measure. My titer test showed I had it at some point. However, I know many RN as well as Doc friends that are taking or did take it early on.
I wish they would do I titer on Trump to see if he had it and just never realized he had it, like me. I guess then he would realize he did not need two weeks of hydroxychloroquine.
Because people like you, who will believe in these conspiracy theories, have clearly not learned that the e-mail scandal was not one of criminality. Yet, many were happy to chant idiocy like 'lock her up.' Now you choose to repeat Trump's latest unfounded claim publicly. The only thing you've proven by using the term Obamagate, is that you're extremely gullible.
"People like you"... You fit so well into the liberal psychological phenomenon of groupthink. In regard to Hillary and her private server grift
James Comey --- "Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support the conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
She broke the law and was just labeled "extremely careless"...
I chose to update my thread what is being done in regards to some officials in the Obama administration unmasking of Flynn. I provided a fact. That fact is the FBI is now investigating the matter.
I gave no opinion or showed no bias on the matter. Just an update.
It's you that chooses to read something into my comment that just is not there.
I just wonder why you feel you have the right to insinuate I am gullible. If we have open the door to personal thoughts on the character. I find you obviously insecure, most likely a person with poor self-esteem. You seem to enjoy giving your opinion very freely. So, I would assume you can take as much as you give out.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press … ail-systemA short list of people who need to be investigated or put in jail:
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
Joe Scarborough
Why are there no active U.S. investigations on any of them?Hillary Clinton is still being investigated by Judicial Watch.
Mar 2, 2020--"A federal judge has ordered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sit for a sworn deposition for the first time in connection with her use of a private email account during her State Department tenure.
U.S. District Court Royce Lamberth issued the order Monday in connection with a five-and-a-half-year-old Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed seeking emails related to the deadly 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/0 … ion-118800
March 16, 2020 --- Hillary appeals
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ … 0423133954
April 13, 2020 --US Justice Dept. Opposes Hillary Clinton's Challenge to Rare Deposition Order
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ … ion-order/
April 14, 2020 --Justice Department Declines to Support Blocking Hillary Clinton Deposition.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ … eposition/
I think they should leave Joe Biden alone...Just let him go off into the sunset. Maybe get in touch with his childhood friend Corn Pop".
And for Scarborough, not even sure what he has been caused. I don't think I have ever watched his show.
It's not over until it's over. Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. And have shown good success in getting sealed Government documents.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-rel … c-resists/
Unmasked! Uhhhhh!!
When a U.S. Intelligence Agency, such as the National Security Agency, conducts surveillance of a foreigner inside the U.S., sometimes that surveillance picks up the name of an American that the foreigner is speaking to or about. When this happens, intelligence analysts are obliged to hide or “mask” the name of the American if their participation is incidental and no wrongdoing is suspected.
The report or transcript of the surveillance usually lists the masked American’s name as “Person 1.”
If a member of the intelligence community decides they need more information on the intelligence reports they are receiving about a foreign actor, they can request to unmask Person 1.
In Flynn’s case, the National Security Agency was surveilling Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
It had been reported that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, an action viewed as undermining the Obama administration. When they heard Kislyak discussing sanctions with Person One, US intelligence officials wanted to confirm this was Flynn.
Not even Fox.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-i … n-practiceYour synopsis is correct on how unmasking can occur and does frequently if the government picks up something untoward, and an American is involved.
The list released yesterday of 39 top Obama officials showed that numerous persons requested at different times to unmask documents that included Flynn's name. Actually, there were 53 requests to unmask Gen. Flynn’s name from intelligence reports between election day (Nov. 8, 2016) and Jan. 31, 2017. While many of the requesters were Obama political appointees who resigned by Jan. 20, 2017, some were career officers at CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies.
The most disturbing thing about these requests is that the vast majority of them were dated between Dec. 14 and 16, which was before Flynn’s Dec. 29 phone calls to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. To thus far the Dem's have claimed to the public it was the phone call between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador that was the main cause of the unmasking.
An NSA intercept of this very phone call was the basis of the Jan. 24, 2017, FBI interview with Flynn when two FBI agents used this intercept to entrap Flynn into lying about the call.
"The list revealed that then- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made unmasking requests seven times between Nov. 30, 2016, and Jan. 11, 2017.
Clapper made three requests from Dec. 2, 2016, through Jan. 7, 2017.
Brennan made two requests, one on Dec. 14 and one on Dec. 15, 2016.
Comey also made a request on Dec. 15, 2016. On Jan 5, 2017,
McDonough made one request, and on Jan. 12, 2017, Biden made one request.
And there is Joe--- Claimed on several occasions while being interviewed he knew nothing about the unmasking of Flynn. However, this is just not true. Biden is listed among the Obama administration officials who requested the unmasking of Flynn.
My point, many of the requests to unmask Flynn were well before the phone call he had with Kislkac.Maybe I missed this detail in previous reports, but, is there evidence the pre-Russian Ambassador phone call requests unmasked Flynn? Or could they just be unmasking requests made for non-Flynn reasons?
It seems, (to me), the post-phone call unmasking requests would be legitimate inquiries—regardless of whether they can be tied to Obama Administration 'get Trump' officials. The content of the monitored call(s) seems to warrant an identity request.
If the pre-call requests resulted in unmasking Flynn I also think it is important to know why they were made.
On the surface, this unmasking thing seems legitimate if the claims of standard procedure and protocol approval processes, and, that the requesters could not have known who was being unmasked before they actually were are true. *shrug
However, is it entirely unbelievable that somebody knew before the unmasking and the halls and offices were ringing with whispers that prompted the unmasking requests? (especially those pre-call requests (if they in fact unmasked Flynn then)).
Could there have been an adrenaline rush among the get Trumpers when they heard the whisper that a Trump associate was picked up in foreign surveillance?
Until my first question about those pre-call requests gets answered I am keeping my powder dry. Obamagate or Trumpgate—time, (and those answers regarding the pre-call requests), will tell
GA"The list released today is of 39 top Obama officials who made 53 requests to unmask Lt. Gen. Flynn’s name from intelligence reports between election day (Nov. 8, 2016) and Jan. 31, 2017. While many of the requesters were Obama political appointees who resigned by Jan. 20, 2017, some were career officers at CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies." FOX News
"The most stunning thing about this list is that the vast majority of these requests were dated between Dec. 14 and 16, which was before Flynn’s Dec. 29 phone call to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. An NSA intercept of this phone call was the basis of the Jan. 24, 2017, FBI interview with Flynn when two FBI agents used this intercept to entrap Flynn into lying about the call." FOX News
In regard to who requested the unredacted phone call between Flynn and Kislyak --- "In addition, there were only seven unmasking requests by seven officials after the Dec. 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call – by Vice President Biden, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other career officials. Since the information in this intercept leaked to the press, these seven officials are suspects for this criminal act."
"Other significant observations: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power made the most unmasking requests for Flynn’s name – seven. Clapper made three. No one else made more than two. Power, who reportedly made an astounding 260 demasking requests during her time as U.N. ambassador, testified in 2017 that most of these requests were made in her name but she did not request this information. I believe Power and assume someone at the NSC, who was not authorized access to demasking information, made these requests in her name. The intelligence community needs to disclose who this person was." FOX News
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/flynn-u … red-fleitz
I trust the report to be true. Very rare will Fox report a story they need to retract. FOX used names and provided dates. " Not sources tell me..." I have not heard any statements from those mentioned in the article, except for Joe Biden. ---- In a statement, a Biden campaign spokesperson said, “Donald Trump’s attempt at dishonest media manipulation to distract from his response to the worst public health crisis in 100 years has backfired.”
“These documents simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government — including among career officials — over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn’s attempts to undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials or other foreign representatives.”
This is not smoke this is fire. The unmasking does not bother me as much as the mindset of those that sought to stamp on Flynn's rights, and his reputation.Thanks for the information Sharlee. I was familiar with most of it, but the unmasking of Flynn remains murky to me for at least one reason;
According to all explanations the unmasked name cannot be known until it is actually unmasked. If that is taken as gospel then the requests cannot be directly tied to efforts against Flynn.
However, I don't automatically accept that truth. I think it may be entirely believable that someone in the intelligence stream may have, (repeat that—may have), known that "Person 1" was Flynn and whispered it in somebody's ear.
Also, there is this:
"The list released today is of 39 top Obama officials who made 53 requests to unmask Lt. Gen. Flynn’s name"
If the above mentioned "gospel" is true then this statement cannot be true because those requests could not have known who's name they were unmasking. Maybe it is just poor wording on the reporter's part. Maybe it would be just as correct if the statement said "that unmasked Flynn" instead of "to unmask Flynn." Or, maybe I am reading to much into that statement's wording.
Then there is the Samantha Powers problem. Requests made in her name—but not by her directly. I have read the same could be the case for some of those other high-profile names; a request in their name could possibly have been made by someone else working for them. One example given talked about someone giving a Big Name' an intelligence briefing making such a request, (in Big Name's name), to give a more detailed briefing.
So I am still holding my powder until some of those questions are answered. If those pre-ambassador call requests were Flynn specific requests you might have the fire you speak of, but if not, and Flynn's name just happened to be the name behind Person 1, then that fire might not be the one you think it is.
Now if I was making a bet, I would put my money on an intelligence source's whisper echoing in the halls. But that is only because I am so cynical about partisan politics, not because I know something or believe something just because someone said it. ;-)
GA"The list released today is of 39 top Obama officials who made 53 requests to unmask Lt. Gen. Flynn’s name"
I would think FOX would be up for some very strong statements of denial if the context was untrue. Plus as I said FOX, as a rule, do their homework, and don't have many reports they need to retract. So, far I have not heard not one as I said Biden's. And FOX showed the document for Biden's request to unmask a document that B was Flynn. The Biden statement did not address why his name was on the document. One would think that it would have been addressed or a clear explanation as to why his name was on the unmasking request document.
I would say any and all that requested documents where B was unmasked and that B turned out to be Flynn, those individuals better have a dam good reason why they requested the unmasking. I must ask, You don't find it odd so many in a given time period just happen to request to unmask Flynn?
It will be interesting to see the other documents that these Obama officials requested on Flynn. By law, it is legal to request only foreign subjects to request the need to have someone unknown unmasked. And, I would think Flynn's phone calls and emails had to be leaked to any who requested documents that Flynn ended up being B...
This needs to be investigated thoroughly by AG Barr. He has the power to quickly assess all the documents and ascertain what reasons these officials had for multiple requests that ended up unmasking Flynn.
I can't fathom this kind of corruption. I do think the Dems overplayed their hand this time. Documents can be used as factual evidence. The documents are the easy part, we now need to pull in every one of those officials that requested an masking that Flynn ended up being B."You don't find it odd so many in a given time period just happen to request to unmask Flynn?"
You mean in a time period when...
(12/1/2016) Flynn and Jared Kushner meet with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, at Trump Tower.
(12/22/2016) Flynn calls Kislyak and asks if Russia would delay or defeat an upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution vote that sought to condemn Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
(12/29/2016) Flynn calls Kislyak and asks that Russia refrain from retaliating to the U.S. sanctions. Kislyak agrees that Russia would “moderate its response to those sanctions” as a result of his request.
The same Flynn that was present when Trump received his first intelligence briefing at FBI headquarters in New York City (8/17/2016) and was selected (11/18/2016) as national security adviser by Trump?
Yep, really odd.
And to be clear, that's the same Flynn that spoke at RT’s anniversary conference in Moscow and sat next to Putin, right?
Yep, definitely odd.Please let me reorient you to the conversation between GA and myself. We are discussing a new piece of news. Yes, I realize you do like to bring up any and all old news reports. No problem, but I am not playing "well he did this back in whenever"
The time period we were discussing --- is the time period the Obama administration officials unmasked Flynn.
"The list released yesterday of 39 top Obama officials showed that numerous persons requested at different times to unmask documents that included Flynn's name. Actually, there were 53 requests to unmask Gen. Flynn’s name from intelligence reports between election day (Nov. 8, 2016) and Jan. 31, 2017. While many of the requesters were Obama political appointees who resigned by Jan. 20, 2017, some were career officers at CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies." Many unmasking requests were made prior to the phone call in question."
If you want to Trump bash that's your prerogative. I don't join that game. It seems you enter into conversations and make every attempt to change the subject, and promote a back and forth... Just not interested. it's very obvious I don't address you, I respect we have different opinions. Hopefully, you will do the same."The time period we were discussing --- is the time period the Obama administration officials unmasked Flynn."
Same subject. Read the dates.After rereading your comment I feel I owe you an apology. I just looked at a list and took your comment as derogatory. I see your point. The incidence you listed certainly could have turn out to be why an official may have asked for a document to be unmasked. And as of yet the reasons that were given on the unmasking request have not been reported or leaked. It will be interesting to see if the requests were warranted and if they do correlate with your list.
She is addressing the same time period as you are.
And where did she Trump bash? I don't see it,I reread IB post and offered an apology. I took her comment out of context, and she had a relevant point that yes, was on the subject.
There are certain females in this country who when you provide fresh evidence since 2016, there is a disconnect in brain power.
Trump is right now playing a very dangerous game. He is attempting to use Senate Republicans to smear Obama. How will that possibly fly with a world that hates Trump and respects, loves and admires Obama?
Trump is his own worst enemy and for some hugely ignorant people, deadly to their health and their kids.
I'll give you an example. One week ago at 4AM in the morning, Trump tweeted and I quote, "I should get a Nobel Prize if the prize was given out fairly."
What would he get a Nobel Prize for? Neglience of his job to protect the citizens of this country? In March 2020, (so the poster doesn't claim this is old news) Trump said on the White House lawn, "I knew about the virus before anyone else."
Of course he did. But he refuse to allow ANYONE To do anything about it. Yet, The White House was forced to admit he shipped tons of medical equipment to Russia in JANUARY 2020.
The judge in Flynn's case stated one week ago to Barr that "this case is not over."
So now Trump and Barr stupidly will force the reopening of this case with even more damning evidence against Flynn. Not that the ignorants will accept the facts as they are shown in a court of law.
If Trump says it to them it's true. If anyone else has the facts, it's a lie. Trump World.
I wouldn't ever watch Fox News. Not when Eric Trump tells Fox News just last week that this virus is a "conspiracy against" his father. Sure. 90,000 dead and they were all in on a conspiracy to get rid of Trump. Ignorant seeds never fall far from the rotting tree.
Well damn, where did you find the ambassador/Flynn call transcripts? I have been looking all over for them so I could compare them to Flynn's FBI interview statements.
All I could find are the FBI's 302 reports, (reports of the Flynn interview), and the DOJ's summation of Flynn's interview statements, (that they felt their prosecutors couldn't prove were lies—to a jury), and they do not support your 12/22 or 12/29 quoted claims.
I didn't save the 302 links but they are easily found and you can see for yourself why those claims aren't, (yet), supported.
GAI didn't. But unless you doubt the Mueller Report and Flynn own guilty plea, I think the claims are supported enough.
Statement of Offense and Defendant's AcceptanceYou got me Island Mom. I don't know what to think about your link. None of the indictment's declarations were included in the FBI/Flynn interview report.
So where did they come from? The FBI's 302s, (official reports of interview facts), didn't include anything about most of the charging document's claims. So where did that information come from? The call transcripts? As far as I can tell, those charging document prosecutors didn't have access to the call transcripts either.
I will concede to being corrected when the call(s) transcripts support all claims, (both the charging document and the FBI), but at this point, with only the 302s to judge by, I don't think your charging document, or Flynn's plea, (there is talk of pressure to also prosecute his son if he didn't plea), are supported.
Then there is the 'they wouldn't do that' thought about the DOJ's dismissal motion. If the charging document's claims can be validated, then I don't think the DOJ would make such a dismissal case based solely on FBI improprieties.
As for Flynn's plea—there are multiple explanations and reasons for it that I tend to find believable.
GAOkay, I will see if I can dig those out.
GAVol I, IV, B, 7, a & b.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/ … chable.pdf
It is next to impossible to reason with people who support Trump. A Supreme Court judge could knock them over the head with evidence and all you get from them is "maybe....possibly....could have been...would have been..."
The point is the rest of us will not accept what we know is wrong. If Trump is the icon of what children should consider a role model, something has gone far too wrong in this country.
I'm glad I won't be around when GenZ is old enough to vote. If there are still elections and not a Trump Dynasty running the country.
Welllll . . . considering the documents in question were counterintelligence reports related to Russia's interference in our 2016 election, I can see a whole lot of people that would be interested in those reports. I don't see nefarious motives in the number of folks requesting the unmasking—on the surface.
But, if my 'whispers in the halls' thought turns out to be right, then all that surface legitimacy goes out the window.
Checking out this "unmasking" thing led me to links, (in The Hill opinion piece link that I think you provided), related to the DOJ's motion to dismiss, and the actual FBI 302s, (Flynn interview reports), and the Comey and Yates quotes, and the Strzok's and Page's texts, and the emails concerning the delay of closing an investigation that had already been authorized to close, (due to lack of negative evidence), and the FBI's breach of protocol in the Flynn interview . . . and it sure looks like DOJ decision is the right one, and those "whispers" were more than just whispers in the FBI cadre associated with the investigation.
GAGA---" I don't see nefarious motives in the number of folks requesting the unmasking—on the surface"
I agree it does appear to perhaps be a "fishing expedition". Although, it may impede upon his constitutional right to privacy. I mean they requested them for a reason. Hopefully, we will learn some of those reasons.
"I would think FOX would be up for some very strong statements of denial if the context was untrue. Plus as I said FOX, as a rule, do their homework, and don't have many reports they need to retract."
Yeah, what about that Patty and Aretha thing? That was simple and Fox got it wrong. No media source is above scrutiny, the first rule of being informed citizens. And don't come back with angry right wing crap because I'm very informed. Don't tell me I'm off topic;keep that arrogant condescending stuff to yourself. If Fox screwed up once, they can do it again.Seth Rich conspiracy theory was all Fox News. Obama Birtherism was all Fox News. Hillary's e-mail criminality was all Fox News. Still waiting for any of that to be true.
There's so much to do:
Put Hillary Clinton in jail.
Put Joe Scarborough in jail.
Get to the bottom of Pizzagate.
Take my hydroxychloroquine.
Still need to verify Obama's birth certificate.
Go to services in a packed church.
...so little time.No. It was absolute 100% fact, no gray area, no doubts about it.
Comey did his "investigation" of it and dismissed it. However the illegality of her actions were in black and white in the regulations and laws regarding Classified and above information.
It was not Comey's place or authority to dismiss or discharge, but he did so anyway, and that is how things were run during the Obama Administration, they repeatedly acted above the law and without authority to do many of the things that were done.
Biden is another example of someone who abused his authority and violated laws, the recent tapes that were released regarding the Ukrainian President and then VP Biden are cut and dry... there is nothing left to doubt.
The former Ukrainian President point blank states he was doing it as a favor to him (the VP) and that there was no evidence against the Ukrainian Prosecutor, but the Prosecutor General was investigating Burisma and the disappearance of billions of dollars, Hunter Biden just so happened to sit on the board of Burisma, and so Shokin had to go.
Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired. And he even bragged about it, openly, in public.
Biden and Clinton were out of control, two people that had been in DC for so long and had grown so used to power and doing whatever the heck they wanted I don't think they realize just how far over the line they had gone, and if they did, then their actions are as corrupt and treasonous to the nation as anyone's ever were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44RG_7ePaNIThen why hasn't Donald Trump put her in jail like he promised? Instead, he's focused on a kook who admitted his guilt twice, who even Donald Trump has said is a nutcase.
Btw, Otis on Youtube recommends you take your hydroxychloroquine. Hope you're taking it. I know I am.Even Trump's own people found no criminality for Clinton. Look it up so you don't sound so ridiculous just accusing Comey.
Valeant,
The problem with these ridiculous assertions is that when people start relying on random Youtubers for their news, they develop an inability to discern what is truly fake news. And if you just keep listening to and repeating the same lies, it all starts making sense to you.
Nothing is stopping Donald Trump from launching investigations into Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Nothing. So why doesn't he? Because there's nothing there.
And this assertion that Shokin was some beacon of truth and that Biden had him fired because he was going to reveal the truth about Hunter Biden is fabricated. All evidence points to Shokin being completely corrupt and Biden doing the bidding of most of the world, all of whom knew Shokin was corrupt. But these lies, like all of Trump's other lies, just keep getting repeated. It's all garbage.
Once again, if Clinton and Biden are guilty, then investigate them, throw them in jail. The problem, of course - the logical problem - is that if they are investigated, it will turn up nothing and then it will be over. It's much easier to keep tossing out unfounded accusations.
Like Joe Scarborough being a murderer. All garbage.(1) Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing James B.
Comey to mislead the American people by stating that he should
refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified
data and use of an unauthorized email server by former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a ``matter'', rather than
a criminal ``investigation''.
(4) The decision by James B. Comey to usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.
(9) James B. Comey's refusal to investigate then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton regarding--
(A) selling access to the U.S. State Department
through Clinton Foundation donations;
(B) Huma Abedin's dual employment at the State
Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously;
or
(C) utilization of the State Department to further
paid speaking opportunities for her husband.
H. Res. 446, as amended in committee, seeks information
regarding the removal of James B. Comey as Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, including:
(3) The propriety and consequence of immunity deals given
to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, during the criminal investigation into
Hillary Clinton's misconduct.
(4) The decision by James B. Comey to usurp the authority
of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual
announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against
Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email
server and mishandling of classified information.
(7) James B. Comey's refusal to investigate then-Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton regarding selling access to the U.S.
State Department through Clinton Foundation donations and
utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking
opportunities for her husband.
Jul 5, 2016 - Comey, on Tuesday recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary …
Jul 8, 2016 - James Comey says justice demands proof of criminal intent, even when the law doesn't. [which is total BS especially when it applies to Classified AND ABOVE intel]
Attorney General Loretta Lynch steadfastly defended her decision to close the Hillary Clinton email investigation without criminal charges, insisting Tuesday that …
The people responsible for upholding the law and prosecuting those who wantonly violate it, were the very people who helped Clinton cover up her illegal activities and buried as much of the evidence as they could.
How ANY person is required to handle Classified (and above) information is black and white, there are no exceptions to the laws and regulations, there is no "proof of criminal intent" required as Comey determined was necessary.
Clinton had total disregard for security protocols, she could have cared less how many laws she was violating or how many lives she put in danger, the rules didn't apply to her... she was above the law... she was going to be the next President... she wore her arrogance and total disregard for the laws on her sleeve " Like with a cloth or something?” she asked, then laughed. “I don't know how it works digitally at all.”Again, you've failed to move on from 2016. This is from the Trump Administration's State Department Inspector General's assessment from late 2019.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … department
'The state department has completed its years-long internal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information”.'
Investigators determined that those 38 people were “culpable” in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton’s personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican senator Chuck Grassley this week and released on Friday. The 38 are current and former state department officials but were not identified.
While there were no findings of deliberate mishandling of classified information, the report made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email while serving as the secretary of state in the Obama administration had increased the vulnerability of classified information.
The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases.
For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or go to renew security clearances. For current officials, there could also be some kind of disciplinary action. But it was not immediately clear what that would be.
The report concluded “that the use of a private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of state department networks”.
The department began the review in 2016 after declaring 22 emails from Clinton’s private server to be “top secret”.
----
So let me break the above down to you, as someone who formerly dealt with SIPR net and Top Secret and above information...
Essentially they are saying Clinton broke every rule in the book regarding Classified communications. But we are not going to hold her accountable, instead we are going to blame the 38 other poor saps who made the mistake of sending her information or allowing it to be sent to her in other than secure format.
Which is truly hysterical, I can imagine her demanding of them that they send her the information in non-secure format, essentially putting them in a position where they either do it, or find another career outside of the government... and now they take the fall for it.
In essence I suppose if you stretch the technicality of the law, they did disclose the information to the SoS by non-secure methods so they are to blame... even if they were ordered by the SoS to violate the regulations regarding classified information.
And if she then disseminated it to others, as it had been sent to her in non-secure format, she has plausible deniability that she knew it was Top Secret information. Because, after all, anyone in her position would know that Classified (and above) information cannot be sent via Non-classified Internet and must be sent through the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network.'Essentially they are saying Clinton broke every rule in the book regarding Classified communications. But we are not going to hold her accountable, instead we are going to blame the 38 other poor saps who made the mistake of sending her information or allowing it to be sent to her in other than non-secure format.'
The 'but we' you just noted...is Trump's State Department. Not sure why you cannot accept a decision by Comey and Trump's people that both came to similar conclusions.Because its BS... that's why.
They are saying she is not to blame for Top Secret information being sent to her on non-secure internet.
And I am saying that is absolute BS... she knew it was wrong, she should have put a stop to it the first time anyone sent her TS information that way... but she wanted it sent that way, it was easier for her, it allowed her to make that information available to anyone else without accountability.
She absolutely broke every rule in the book regarding TS information and if she hadn't been the former SoS and former First Lady she would have spent a decade or more doing time.
That's how the game works... once you reach that level you are untouchable no matter how many crimes you've committed.
Give me a list of former SoS & First Ladies that have done hard time.It's likely the same BS that Bush got away with when his entire administration kept their communications on a private server at the Republican National Committee offices.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/g-w-b … n-e-mails/
'The Bush Administration admitted that in reviewing documents requested by Democrats for their investigations, it discovered that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act. The staffers, the White House said, were using e-mail accounts, laptops and BlackBerries provided by the Republican National Committee for official executive branch communications rather than the exclusively political work for which they were intended.'
So there was precedent, but isn't it odd that no one want to "Lock Him Up!" in Bush's case.The mistake you (and you are not alone on here regarding this) make is thinking I am interested in protecting Republicans and trashing Democrats.
I didn't like Bush, he was an OK guy considering, but his intellect was way too inferior for the position IMO. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. He was a front man for Cheney, who was the sharpest tool in that administration by far.
In general I don't like politicians, especially those who have spent their lives in DC. I have long realized that our government does not serve the interests of the American people... it serves the interests of International Corporations, Banks and Billionaires.
There was a brief time when it did serve the people more than it served the corporations or banks, more often than not, this was after WWII until the early 70s... and then things began to change, especially after Nixon and Kissinger opened up China and the push towards globalization really began.
Tim, I am not sure why you would feel I would tell you you're off-topic. You clear have addressed the subject... I did mention Fox due to it was them that reported the story I was discussing with GA as well as the subject of this thread. I did make the statement "Plus as I said FOX, as a rule, do their homework, and don't have many reports they need to retract" I certainly did not say they never have had to retract a story. I also said they have not received any backlash on the report from anyone involved except the Biden can[sign. It is certainly true all media should be held to scrutiny.
I am not sure why you assume I would respond in this way.
"And don't come back with angry right wing crap because I'm very informed. Don't tell me I'm off topic; keep that arrogant condescending stuff to yourself. If Fox screwed up once, they can do it again."
I certainly did not in any respect address you as uninformed or arrogant. I actually don't believe we have interacted here on HP.
GA, IslandBites pointed out something interesting that is very relevant to our conversation. (I browsed the comment quickly and completely took it out of context. Which I apologized for). IB pointed out that during the time frame when all the officials were requesting documents that ended up unmasking Flynn, he was involved with several situations that could have become perhaps questionable to the Obama administration.
The biggest part of the puzzle is what were the reasons for the unmaskings, and will the reasons be plausible. Were they important enough to require Flynn's rights be violated?It looks like we are on the same page now Sharlee. On the surface, I don't think the "list" revelations are out of the ordinary. But, as noted to another of your comments, it is beginning to look like maybe the surface appearance isn't the reality of the situation—at least on the FBI's part.
GA
The Flynn case was dropped because the FBI had no case.
“The government was monitoring Kislyak, and recordings showed that Flynn did nothing inappropriate; there was no ground to reopen or continue the counterintelligence investigation or to begin a criminal investigation.
“First, Flynn’s statements to investigators were equivocal. That creates significant questions about whether inaccuracies in his description of the Kislyak discussions were honest failures of recollection, not lies. The interview happened about a month after the Kislyak communications. In the interim, Flynn had hundreds of conversations with foreign counterparts. It would have been a challenge for anyone to remember the words of a conversation under those circumstances; and, in their legerdemain, the FBI strategically refused to refresh Flynn’s recollection by playing recordings or showing a transcript.
Second, the FBI and prosecutors took inconsistent positions on whether Flynn intentionally misled them. The interviewing agents believed he was truthful, if forgetful. Director Comey reportedly said the question of whether Flynn lied was a “close call.” Assuming this is so, a close call is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Third, the agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which they hoped to trip him up. It is rote for FBI “302” reports — used to summarize witness interviews — to start by recounting that interviewing agents advised the subject of the nature of the interview. But they did not do that with Flynn. He was discouraged from consulting counsel and from reporting the FBI’s request to speak with him to his White House chain-of-command. He was not given the customary advice of rights — the FBI, after officials acknowledged among themselves that they owed it to Flynn to advise him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution, willfully withheld this admonition from him.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 … t-prove-it"Third, the agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which they hoped to trip him up."
From what I've read and heard, this fact is the primary problem with continuing the case against Flynn. Is that how you see it?
*Yawn* Unmasking is a totally legal process that happens all the time. Russia attacked our democracy in 2016. Seems perfectly valid the government still in power would want to be monitoring foreign agents. Flynn should not have lied to investigators.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumn … 38a9a945b9
This is a right-wing conspiracy. Keep me posted when Hillary is going to jail for her e-mail server. Still waiting for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to lock her up. And I'm dying to see the check from Mexico since they will be paying for any wall construction. Shar likes to say Trump keeps his campaign promises. There's two he did not, along with the great new healthcare plan that protects pre-existing conditions. Seems the main one he has kept is to give his rich buddies tax breaks while not cutting government spending to balloon the national debt.While you are "waiting" for that other stuff, here is some reading that might impact your opinion:
Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can't prove it
I will grant that the above is an opinion piece from The Hill, but it is filled with links that you can follow to find the actual documents and attributed quotes that support its claims.
And then, check out the DOJ’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn to see how the provable facts seem to support both the Hill's opinion piece and the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
Or not. You can always hang on to that 'It's a conspiracy" thought.
GAStand by. The right wing's savior god to thee is desperate to put Obama in jail and also Biden. This is the only way he wins anything. Cheating.
This is why no one with a sane mind trusts him. He lost public trust with every lie he tells.
But when he gets his smear campaign boys to smear Dr. Fauci by claiming Dr. Fauci is guilty of sexual assault and then Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman who are paid trolls both are threatened with jail time for spreading that false lie, admit they were paid by Trump, who needs to bash Trump? He does that well enough on his own.
This only proves that Trump thinks he can falsify anything and get away with it even when there is NO evidence of wrong doing.
The man doesn't care how sleazy he appears to the public. Just imagine if Eisenhower or GHWB acted like this.
If Trump is what any mother points to and tells her child she or he can grow up to be like the president, I'm glad I won't be around to see what Gen Zers old enough to vote will be like.
And this was you:
he time period we were discussing --- is the time period the Obama administration officials unmasked Flynn.
"The list released yesterday of 39 top Obama officials showed that numerous persons requested at different times to unmask documents that included Flynn's name. Actually, there were 53 requests to unmask Gen. Flynn’s name from intelligence reports between election day (Nov. 8, 2016) and Jan. 31, 2017.
Maybe you need (new?) glasses?
Edit: I guess you deleted your post?Yes, I did delete it, I went back and reread your post. And offer an apology. I took your post out of context. At any rate, I think we rub each other the wrong way. Maybe time to avoid each other's comments.
I just read it. There's no need for an apology. You can avoid my comments. I won't. I mean, I do sometimes. LOL
But I will not when I think there's something relevant I should say, refute or contextualize.
Anyone else find it completely comical that Trump, the guy who refused to cooperate with Congress in any way, wants Congress to try and force Obama to testify about his fake scandal? He's too stupid to understand the double standard he's pushing.
Thanks for the link. Now, the Meuller report and the Court charging documents demand the assumption that they had access to the call transcripts because that kind of detail is not included in Flynn's FBI 302 reports.
That assumption also demands another, that Flynn's FBI interview statements were categorical denials. But the actual 'official' 302s, (there is some controversy about their veracity), don't portray that. They portray Flynn as being equivocal or not recollecting—although there is one definite "No" relative to the Egypt thing, on the sanctions thing and the Russian UN voting point.
However, even if it were acknowledged that Flynn lied, (Director Comey called it a "close call)," there remains the behavior of the FBI—in the nature of Peter Strzok's actions.
The official investigation of Flynn was determined to be negative and slated for closure, and without Strzok's intervention, it would have been. The Ambassador phone call would have and should have, been a separate, (and new), investigation—unrelated to the original "Russian Collusion" investigation.
I am not inclined to exonerate Flynn of the lying charges, but I am inclined to view his pursuit as biased and unethical behavior on the FBI's part.
Following the DOJ's dismissal logic I too think it would have been impossible to get a jury conviction due to FBI malfeasance.
If they wanted Flynn they should have followed their own protocol.
But still, I would be much more confident in my opinion about Flynn's lies if the actual call transcript was available because the interview reports don't meet the mark of the Mueller Report or the charging document's claims.
GABut still, I would be much more confident in my opinion about Flynn's lies if the actual call transcript was available because the interview reports don't meet the mark of the Mueller Report or the charging document's claims.
GA
I guess you'll have to wait.
A year ago, Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered prosecutors to release of transcripts audio recordings between Flynn and Russian officials, but the Justice Department refused.
Federal prosecutors declined to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, arguing that the government “is not relying on any other recordings, of any person, for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentencing, nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record.
In a one-paragraph order, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said he accepted the argument made from federal prosecutors.I must be missing something. Does their "not relying on any other recordings" mean besides the Ambassador's call recording, (it doesn't seem so if they wouldn't release it), or any recordings at all?
Does it mean they were relying on the FBI's evaluation of Flynn's interview? If they didn't use the call transcript where did they get the details for their charges? Why hasn't their source been identified?
The one thing I can be certain of is that the prosecutors and the judge know more about this than I do, but that doesn't answer the question of where the specifics came from. Or the question of why that information isn't available to judge support for both side's claims.
GADont know. Maybe because he plead guilty twice. Maybe because he was cooperating with the investigation. Or maybe just an excuse to help Flynn/WH? I honestly have no idea.
But yes, the judge knows more. Maybe that why he halted the DOJ dismissal of the charges.We are at an impasse' Island Mom. The details I have learned in searching the links convince me that the FBI's pursuit of Flynn was a partisan effort. Just the fact that Peter Strxok was heading it is enough for me to doubt it's, (the investigation), credibility.
At the least, Strzok should have opened a separate investigation. Flynn's activities/lies were not material to the original investigation that authorized the FBI's activities. Of course, it is only my opinion, but anything Strzok/Page-related is tainted by their proven partisan bias.
As for the charges in the charging documents, Flynn's plea, (consider; could there be any validity in the premise that he entered the plea to save his son from being prosecuted too? *shrug), and the DOJ's determination of their provability—I need more info before I will accept any as gospel. The 302s don't support the charges, so there must be something else.
GASo Flynn, who held no government position when he's talking with the Russian ambassador and telling him that the incoming administration plans to undermine the sanctions imposed on their country by Obama for illegally hacking our elections, lies to the FBI about the substance of that conversation.
Somehow, you're fine with this and don't think it relates to the Russia Investigation?Flynn held no government position? Have you ever heard of the position of National Security Advisor? That is the position Flynn held within the administration.
What I have real issue with is the fact that the FBI denied Michael Flynn access to legal counsel before they interviewed him.
Documents recently discovered show the FBI had an agenda when they interviewed Michael Flynn. They were going to find a way to charge him with something. No matter what he did, under our system of justice, he has certain rights.
I'm not okay with this behavior of the FBI.
It is more proof the Russia collusion allegations were always nothing but a hoax.No, I don't think Flynn's actions were related to the FBI's Russian Interference investigation. His scrutiny in that investigation had already cleared him. Hence the decision to close the FBI investigation of him.
His ambassador-call actions were post-election so how could you think they were related?
GAYou are not correct in your assumption that Flynn held "no government position when he made the call to Kislyak.". 18 November 2016 Trump named Flynn national security adviser. The call-in question that was at the heart of the FBI case against Flynn was made after he obtained his "government position". Flynn admitted that he lied to investigators about a Dec. 29 2016 call that he had with Kislyak. On the day of the conversation, the Obama administration announced sanctions against Russia in response to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that Flynn was undermining the Obama Russian sanctions. The phone calls between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak are at the very heart of the controversy surrounding the former national security adviser, neither supporters of Flynn nor questioners of the AG Barr have succeeded in seeing transcripts of that call. Flynn has claimed he was pressured to agree to a plea bargain.
At this juncture to little is known about what really went down. Actually Flynn had every right to make that call to Kislyak, due to his new position as a national security adviser. He also would have had the right to discuss the new sanctions. Trump may have had plans to lift sanctions or add more... You forget Trump was the new guy in town. And he very well could have had different plans for Russia in regards to sanctions.
On Dec. 29 the same day as the Flynn call to Kislyak President Obama retaliated for Russian cyber-meddling in the 2016 presidential election and announced sanctions against Russia’s main intelligence agencies plus three other organizations and six individuals. He also orders also expelled 35 diplomats, who officials said were covert intelligence agents, from the Russian embassy in Washington and blocked Russian access to two Russian government-owned facilities in New York and Maryland they said were being used for intelligence operations. President Trump never lifted those sanctions, and in the years to come to add more sanctions on Russia for various reasons.
I am baffled why anyone would find the Flynn Kislyak call out of place, it would seem very normal due to his new job responsibilities.
As of yet, the transcripts of the call have not been made public, maybe it would be prudent to wait and see what these two men discussed, the actual context of the call before we judge Flynn.
The two mistruths that are listed in the charges are ridiculous...
1. Flynn claimed he DID NOT ask Kislyak to reframe from escalating the situation in response to the sanctions that the US had imposed on Russia. ( so if he did ask Kislyak to reframe form escalating the situation this would have been BAD?)This seems half ass-backward to me...
2. Flynn could not recall an earlier phone call with Kislyak.
The most important documents have not been released or leaked. AG Barr has viewed them, and he dropped the case against Flynn.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … y-lied-fbiLate November: Flynn is warned about communicating with Kislyak by members of Trump’s transition team.
Dec. 1: Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner meet with Kislyak at Trump Tower. In communications intercepted by American intelligence agencies, Kislyak later tells Moscow that Kushner advocated a private communications channel between Trump’s team and the Kremlin.
Dec. 22: According to the statement of offense filed by Mueller’s team, a “very senior member” of the Trump transition team tells Flynn to “contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia” to try and influence votes on a U.N. resolution about Israeli settlements. According to the charging document, Flynn and Kislyak have a conversation in which Flynn asks Russia to vote against the resolution or to delay it.
Dec. 28: Obama announces measures meant to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. According to the statement of offense, Kislyak contacts Flynn.
Dec. 29: Flynn calls an unidentified senior official with the Trump transition team who was at Mar-a-Lago to ask what he should say to Kislyak.
Flynn and Kislyak speak, after which Flynn again calls the transition official to inform him or her of the discussion. These calls were apparently on unsecured lines, and monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The charging document claims that Flynn later lied about the content of the calls with Kislyak, including that Flynn denied having asked the Russians to refrain from escalating tensions by retaliating with sanctions of their own. In other words: Flynn did make that request.
Dec. 30: Trump praises Putin for not escalating tensions by retaliating.
The charging document from the Mueller team clearly states Flynn spoke with Kislyak about the Obama sanctions, as I stated.Anyone who lives in the NY/NJ Metro area and has ever shopped on 5th Avenue near Trump Tower would tell you that Trump leased an entire floor of Trump Tower to 5 Russian oligarchs. One of those was Sergei Kislyak, who served as an ambassador to the US.
Trump has consistently done business with the Russians for over 2 decades. All in an effort to gain what he wanted most, that Trump Tower in Moscow.
So when he sold a tornado damaged property in Florida to Rybolovlev, a billionaire Russia oligarch for twice its value and to this day has never been inhabited due to massive storm damage, you can see that these Russians even in the late 1990s were attempting to gain a foothold in the US through Trump real estate.
GA, If you view the original charges made against Flynn it will have you scratching your head.
1. Flynn claimed he DID NOT ask Kislyak to reframe from escalating the situation in response to the sanctions that the US had imposed on Russia. ( so if he did ask Kislyak to reframe form escalating the situation this would have been BAD?)This seems half ass-backward to me...
2. Flynn could not recall an earlier phone call with Kislyak."
He was charged for lying to the FBI. But look how rediculous the lies are. They fully went out to destroy this man, one must ask why. These crimes do not fit the punishment. They certainly pulled out all stops to entrap him in my view.
Now we are left to wonder why the Flynn, Kislyak call transcript has not been released. We knew the call transcript had to be used by the prosecution in the Flynn case, the conversation id referred to in the charges. We definitely know AG Barr has viewed them to come to his conclusion to the drop charges on Flynn. AG Barr claimed the Durham investigation is in its final phases. Hopefully, some of our questions about the Flynn charges will be answered in the Durham report.
This link shows court documents providing charges against Flynn
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … y-lied-fbiI am in a wait-and-see mode Sharlee. Relative to the charges of lying to the FBI, I don't think their own report of the interview, (the 302 reports), support the depth and detail of the court charges. So I am forced to make the assumption that those details are revealed in the call transcripts, which means I can't go any further than agreeing that the FBI abused their own investigative protocols in their pursuit of Flynn.
The ambassador call was post-election and was not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. I think I read somewhere that the FBI even discussed opening a new counterintelligence, or even criminal investigation into Flynn's actions.
But they didn't, and when you consider the cast of characters involved in that failure, and the further pursuit of Flynn without proper authorization it seems to me the DOJ motion to dismiss is a smart move.
GAI really don't think AG Barr would have dropped the charges without the new documents that showed good evidence that the FBI had no cause to open an investigation into Flynn, and were all but ready to drop the matter. Not sure we will ever be privy to the phone call transcript.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/3 … nts-227153
It will be interesting to see Judge Sullivan's next move.
I must agree Obama is was and is a wonderful speaker, one could call him eloquent. He was blessed with pleasant looks and a very likable personality. However, he did not have much, more going for him. He spent 8 years flying below the radar. He takes a good game but got very little accomplished. It seems he had done little to nothing after leaving the WH. Yes. he has given his share of speeches and is working on a project with Netflix. Appears he is content flying below the radar.
Myself, I never was in search of a "celebrity" when I voted for him. I was hoping he would solve some of the long time problems the county has been burdened with. Presidents come and go., some leaving the "place" better then they found it. Obama left it pretty much how Bush left it. Now, Trump has disrupted the status quo, he is a lousy speaker, and has crazy hair. But, he pushes, he gets things done. Now, Obama, seems he may have found his place his purpose --- being a celebrity.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie … doing-now/'Obama left it pretty much how Bush left it.'
Again, showing your complete inability to process any accomplishments for the opposite party. At this point, you should just stop talking.
-He increased health coverage for Americans.
-The economy was in shambles when Bush left office - not all because of Bush, Clinton gets an assist - but Obama stabilized the economy, bringing unemployment down from 10% to 4.7%.
-Obama doubled the stock market.
-Obama passed environmental protections in a time when man-man climate change is a major issue.
-Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president prior to him and increased border security resources, all while doing so without killing children at the border.
-Obama was proactive in stopping the Ebola pandemic from affecting our country and established pandemic response units for further threats (something Trump completely undid and look at the result).I was at the opposite party... I voted for Obama. It is more than clear we look at accomplishments differently. I have pointed out why I felt Obama was a poor president, not going once again down that path. So, please don't pull out your canned info on Obama. I could list his failures one after one. What good to beat a dead horse.
In my comment, I pointed out Obama's positive qualities. I was honest. I see nothing much more to say about him. He actually is still flying under the radar. He is living the good life, and still flying under the radar, doing nothing...
Actually the Dan Rathers equate is very right on. I noticed Dan had no mention of Obama's job performance. As I said Obama is a wonderful speaker, he just was not a problem solver.There was no radar. MSM made sure of that. He could not pronounce the words in the speeches prepared for him.
Flynn never lied. It was all because of a spontaneous reaction to an inflammatory video on YouTube. They are all habitual liars.
Its the difference between having hope in an artificial image created by the money and media or hoping that a man might shake up and change the power structure.I see you got my point. I was looking for a disruptor a problem solver, and I got one. And as I said he makes it all look so easy. These last four years have been so enlightening. It makes me realize just how much I was keeping myself in the dark, purposely. I for one pulled my fingers out of my ears and stopped humming. I feel very liberated.
Another important achievement of the Obama administration often overlooked: the cell phone industry was about to make all of America's airwaves practically pay to play. Obama made sure the cell phone industry didn't capture our airwaves as the country went to digital TV. Now, even without cell phone service in practically every community, citizens can reach emergency services on a cell phone. the next time someone falls and needs help without cell service in poor community, but have a cell phone, remember, Obama. I know: some conservatives will say it was an enormous pay out to cell phone companies, until its their granny, or a friend robbed, or a woman attacked that they know who couldn't afford a mobile phone.
Not up for arguing the Logan Act. Plus, Flynn was not charged under the logan Act. So, I don't know why you dig up old rhetoric. Gen. Flynn was appointed and the incoming National Security Advisor during a transitional period had every right to call Kislyak.
Maybe stop spinning. I was addressing your comment that claimed Flynn did not hold a Government Position when he made his call to Kislyak. Stick to the subject, you were wrong in your assumption Flynn did not have a right or should I say a Government position to speak with Kislyak or for that matter any foreign ambassador. It seems to be a pattern of yours to make comments that hold little truth, and when your mistake is pointed out, you make an attempt to deflect from the subject. As you have done here, bringing up the Logan Act... Very old rhetoric, I would think it played out its purpose to stir up the masses.Yes, he can talk to Kislyak. What he cannot do is negotiate on behalf of the United States until he and Trump are sworn in, which is precisely what he was doing on two fronts. He can state publicly how he might disagree with a policy, but when he is negotiating policy directly with foreign agents, that's illegal. Since when are laws just rhetoric?
I'm sorry you cannot understand how Flynn broke the law. Seems to be a common theme with Trump supporters. Flynn lied about what he discussed with Kislyak to the FBI - that was in the charging document from Mueller. And Mueller had the option for a Logan Act violation which granted steeper penalties than the lying charge. Which is likely why Flynn chose to plead to that one.
Flynn broke multiple laws in this instance.Which is likely why Flynn chose to plead to that one.
And decided to cooperate with the Russia investigation.Flynn was in no respect negotiating anything. Once again the all-important charges As you can see all Flynn was doing is asking Kislyak not to escalate the response to the Obama sanctions. No, I will do this if you do that... As you ae insinuating.No negotiating took place that we know of. It has been long established that he was not out of his job description by calling Kislyak.
1. Flynn claimed he DID NOT ask Kislyak to reframe from escalating the situation in response to the sanctions that the US had imposed on Russia. ( so if he did ask Kislyak to reframe form escalating the situation this would have been BAD?)This seems half ass-backward to me...
2. Flynn could not recall an earlier phone call with Kislyak.
I was not referring the Logan Law is rhetoric, just the fact that it was used rhetoric by you, Flynn was never charged with breaking the Logan Act. It was you that posted the link. I assume you were either accusing him of being charged with breaking it or where are you spreading rhetoric on the possibility he should have been charged?
I can certainly see he was charged with crimes. However, due to new evidence, the AG has dropped the case. It well appears he may have been coherent into a plea. I will await the outcome before I make any further assumptions about what Flynn did and what he didn't do. Flynn committed any crimes. I will say to me those charges read as rediculous as they stand.
After following this mess, I would be ashamed to defend an apparent scam,It's so clear that you argue positions after not reading the content in the links that people provide to try and help you understand how these things apply. Your failure to understand the Trump-Kislylak relationship, and your failure of how Flynn clearly violated the Logan Act are just two examples.
It's also apparent that no matter how much evidence we provide, you'll just never see any fault with your cult leader. You are definitely one of those that would stand by after Trump shot someone on fifth avenue and continue saying he's the best president ever.The Trump, Kislyak relationship, what relationship are you referring to? I must admit I don't read your canned old stuff on Trump. Perhaps I missed your bulb on a Trump, Kislyak relationship. I realize I asked for you to offer proof that Flynn was charged with violating the Logan Act. I was being totally sarcastic, argumentative. I think it bazaar to accuse this man of violations of law to simply smear him. Was he charges or was it just feed for the Dem base? An old Law that no one has been charged with for hundreds of years. Yes, lets' just pull this one out of a hat and let the media report we are considering changing Flynn with it. But, did they charge him, No... But some like you are still rehashing it. Over, and over, and over... And yes the report left an indelible mark on Flynn's reputation.
" and your failure of how Flynn clearly violated the Logan Act are just two examples."
I don't believe in any respect that Flynn violated the Logan Act. Just that simple... I completely understand the Logan Act, I even provided you with a definition of the act. Flynn was not negotiating anything, he was not accused of negotiating any form of deals or promising anything of value to Kislyak. He just asked Kislyak not to respond in regard to Obama's sanctions. I would say if he was brokering some form of deal, this could shed new light on violating the Logan Act. He was not accused of any miss such brokering.
I realize you feel he violated the Logan Act. I don't feel he did... Yes, if Flynn had been charged for breaking the Logan Act it would certainly fit into the subject. But, he wasn't, so why even bring it up? Just another bit of crazy from the Dem" in Washington, a bit of feed. And I am sure well taken by many. Why bring it up?
I have provided you with a link that the actual court documents are available that list the charges that were brought against Flynn. I also copied and pasted what he was charged for you to read.
Not up for arguing the Logan Act. Plus, Flynn was not charged under the logan Act. Gen. Flynn was appointed National Security Advisor and made the call during that transitional period, he had the right to call Kislyak. His call was not inappropriate or did he make an attempt to negotiate with a foreign government. I would say this is a dead issue.
If you can supply proof that Flynn was charged with being CHARGED with a crime due to breaking the Logan Act I owe you an apology. Otherwise, you may want to let that one go.
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."
Hopefully, you will read the link where Alan Dershowitz gives a good example of John Kerry violating the Logan Act. I find it a shame he was not charged. He truly did violate the Logan Act.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … s-enforced
Perhaps you could return to the subject "The Unmasking Of Gen Flynn"
why do you think so many made requests to unmask Flynn? Do you think the judge will drop the case as the AG wants him to? This is current news. All the backtracking gets boring.For Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the question now is whether the Logan Act ought to be wielded as part of his widening investigation. That question has both statutory and strategic components. Statutorily, we think that Trump transition team members do fall within the Logan Act’s ambit. According to court filings, Flynn—acting at the direction of a “very senior member” of the Trump transition team—reached out to the Russian ambassador to the United States and urged Russia to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity. There is no indication that the Obama administration implicitly acquiesced to this contact, nor is there any doubt that the Russian ambassador qualifies as an officer or agent of a foreign government. While others have questioned whether this was an effort to defeat a U.S. “measure” (the United States did not introduce the resolution, and it abstained in the ultimate vote), Flynn’s action clearly was an effort to influence Russian conduct in relation to a decades-old dispute between the United States and Israel regarding the West Bank settlements. (Note that the Logan Act would apply to an effort to influence Russian conduct in relation to “any disputes or controversies” with the United States; the fact that the relevant “dispute” was with Israel rather than with Russia would not seem to be dispositive.)
Yet even if we are correct on the statutory point, there remains the question of whether it would be strategically wise for Mueller to bring Logan Act charges. Frank Bowman argues cogently in Slate that invocation of the Logan Act would trigger “inevitable allegations of political bias,” given the long history of not enforcing the law. This is no doubt true, though allegations of bias are probably inevitable however Mueller proceeds. Indeed, one of the reasons for appointing a special counsel in the first place is so that the special counsel can make prosecutorial decisions based on the best view of the law rather than on political calculations.
In the end, Mueller may decide to eschew Logan Act charges for sensible reasons. The federal false statements statute, which Flynn pleaded guilty to violating, may provide a surer path to conviction, and it carries a higher maximum sentence (five years rather than the Logan Act’s three). Yet the Logan Act still would be available to Mueller in the case of a defendant who did not make a false statement with respect to a federal inquiry.Again --- I realize I asked for you to offer proof that Flynn was charged with violating the Logan Act. I was being totally sarcastic, argumentative. I think it bazaar to accuse this man of violations of law to simply smear him. Was he charges or was it just feed for the Dem base? An old Law that no one has been charged with for hundreds of years. Yes, lets' just pull this one out of a hat and let the media report we are considering changing Flynn with it. But, did they charge him, No... But some like you are still rehashing it. Over, and over, and over... And yes the report left an indelible mark on Flynn's reputation.
"Yet even if we are correct on the statutory point, there remains the question of whether it would be strategically wise for Mueller to bring Logan Act charges. Frank Bowman argues cogently in Slate that invocation of the Logan Act would trigger “inevitable allegations of political bias,” given the long history of not enforcing the law. This is no doubt true, though allegations of bias are probably inevitable however Mueller proceeds."
He proceeded to nowhere ... He did not charge Flynn with violating the Logan act. That is just the fact. Not sure why you continue to argue the point. It actually looks like the entire Flynn case was a set-up. It is a fact the AG Barr has dropped all charges. These facts may not be to your liking, but they are facts none the less. I will respect your right to believe whatever you please about Flynn. I think he was railroaded.I'm noting that Flynn likely plead to the lying charge to avoid the greater charge of violating the Logan Act. And you can certainly side with Barr, but...
I'll take the 2,300 legal professionals who believe Barr is wrong about Flynn: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumn … 38a9a945b9
Just as I'll take the 2,600 who felt he was wrong in reducing the sentencing of Roger Stone: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumn … cb75ae4937
That's two clear cases of Barr politicizing the DOJ. At this point, his credibility is zero with much of America.
You say Flynn "clearly violated the Logan Act" yet the FBI discussed that charge option and dismissed it as a non-starter.
What do you know that the FBI didn't?
And, just as you accuse Sharlee, it is also clear that no matter what the lack of evidence is you will still pursue it as the Ark of Truth that only you can see.
Other than your one posted "opinion" link, do a Google search on it as it applies to Flynn and you will find the weight of legal opinions is strongly against its application in this case—including the FBI's legal minds.
GAMichael Zeldin, a former prosecutor who was a special assistant to Mueller in the Justice Department, said the outreach to foreign governments by Trump's team at the time the Obama administration was in dispute with Israel over the vote is "facially" a violation of the Logan Act.
Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador "seems to violate what the Logan Act intended to prevent," Zeldin said. He added that even though the Logan Act hasn't been used successfully "it doesn't mean that Mueller wouldn't consider using it to pressure defendants."
"I think it's a pressure point for other related offenses," said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas law school.
So, there's at least two legal opinions that back up my claim.
This is similar to the two people I have that can back up my claim that the moon is made out of Cheese.
World famous Private Investigator Tom Grant has come forth with a shocking new theory. He has shown proof that the moon that orbits the earth is in fact made out of cheese.
Proof the Moon Is Made of Cheese is detailed in a scientific report put forth by Ma'hatien Combrado.Yet, as your Zeldon says, it "seems" neither Meuller or the FBI, or the prosecutor felt the Logan Act was a valid charge.
Yours is a case of the pundit world vs. the actual participant world.
GAVALEANT,
1. Did you visit the link I provided that supplied the document that listed what Flynn was charged with?
(The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.")
2. Did you note or can you prove Flynn was charged with violating the Logan Act?
And please note ---Yes, I have noted Mueller considered Flynn may have violated the Logan Act during his investigation. And I also noted he did not charge Flynn with violating the Logan Act.
And in my opinion, this shows the Mueller investigation could find little to evidence that Flynn committed any crimes. He certainly had to dig very deep to even consider using an Act that had not been used in 200 years. He looked foolish even bringing it up,
Hopefully, I have made my point clear. The fact stands Flynn was not charged with violating the Logan Act, and yes I understand you think he stood have been. And yes that is your opinion, hold it dear, as you do all the other could haves. and might haves.SHARLEE,
Not sure why we're screaming at each other now, but fine. I know what Flynn was charged with. In many court cases, people are charged with lesser crimes if they choose to accept a guilty plea to expedite the process.
While clearly you guys disagree, the fact remains that some in the legal community felt Flynn violated the Logan Act and it was an option for Mueller to pressure Flynn to plead to the lying charge and cooperate with the investigation, which he clearly did.I am not screaming at anyone. Yes, people make plea bargains for many reasons. New documents provided to Flynn's story showed the FBI had no cause to investigate him, to begin with. The Attorney General Of The United States dropped all charges. I tend to think he looked at all the evidence in the case and found as he said Flynn was wrongly accused. So, am I to believe the two legal opinions that you claim back your claim, or am I to believe an attorney that had excess to all documentation, and evidence in the Flynn case? I prefer to go with Barr, he has all the information to make an opinion on guilt.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … wrongdoingClearly you didn't read the letter where 2,300 former DOJ attorneys disagreed with Barr's decision. This after nearly 2,700 former DOJ attorneys disagreed with Barr on lessening Stone's sentencing.
Barr has shown himself to be a partisan puppet of Trump on at least three occasions now, if we include the press conference where he misinterpreted Mueller's findings before they were released.
That NPR article contradicts itself at least three times. I actually read it. You should try reading links sometimes.I think I made myself clear. However, did any of these 2,300 have access to the information it would require to come to an educated fair evaluation of guilt? Nice try with your Stone diversion. No cigar.
I read the article wor for word. You see what you choose to see that has become very apparent. You grasp for any and all rhetoric, anything that suits your thought process. For example, pointing out 2.300 former DOJ attorneys disagreeing with AG Barr's various decisions. You think this should add weight to substantiate Flynn's guilt, not realizing this group has had no access to any of the facts. "Hang him high, they said so"... Your thought process invites this sort of justice. Because it well appears you developed your opinion due to listening to other opinions, never questioning they could be wrong. Yes, 2,300 DOJ attorneys that have no information on the Flynn case other than what they read...
Memes are fun, facts are serious.
April 10, 2020
U.S. attorney general William Barr implied in an interview Thursday that U.S. Attorney John Durham is prepared to prosecute former intelligence community officials if evidence shows they illegally surveilled the 2016 Trump campaign over allegations of collusion with Russia.
Barr, who tasked Durham last May to review the origins of the Russia investigation, told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham that the Connecticut U.S. attorney is “looking to bring to justice people who were engaged in abuses if he can show that there were criminal violations.”
AG Barr Quote -- “My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here; and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” Barr stated. “And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bar … loppiness/
You claim facts and then quote an article that states...
'implied'
'if evidence'
if he can show'
'his view'
'if people broke the law, and we can establish that'
Are you seriously trying to claim any of what you just posted as facts? C'mon Shar. Take a look in the mirror before posting.The fact I was trying to project was --- We at this point have an AG that is conducting an investigation into Obama's administration possibly illegally surveilled the 2016 Trump campaign. And that Durham is clearly willing to prosecute anyone that he discovers had broken any laws.
“My own view is that the EVIDENCE shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,”
IT is very factual that Durham is conducting an investigation. It is factual that Barr also stated the evidence shows that it was not just sloppiness or mistakes occurring, there is evidence of far more troubling problems.
Context matter, I realize you have been trained to be able to skew context as needed. But I think this article makes it very clear what Durham is doing, and AG Barr's opinion thus far on what the feels the investigation is revealing.
IT is clear Barr took care of his choice of words in some regards and was more open and less guarded in giving his opinion.
In the end, as you well know the outcome of this investigation will shed light on
Obamagate. Hopefully, it will be worthwhile, worth all the taxpayer's funds that it is costing. We all had to realize the wasted cash spent on the Mueller investigation and the impeachment ordeal.Russia if you are listening. Does it occur to Trump fanatics that we have laws in this country that demand surveillance of anyone who is doing business with foreign countries?
Let me know when the south or midwest has a 9/'11 terrorist attack. Maybe then, it will remind these people that national security is not a game.
Obama never put Trump or his campaign under surveillance. But if you must know, ask anyone who lives in Trump Tower Manhattan how Trump put his own hotel leasees under surveillance.
Oddly enough, the only ones he refused to put under surveillance was Manafort and Kislyak both of who leased in Trump Tower Manhattan.
However, he has also done this at Mar-a-Lago and this is a direct quote when one of the Trump Tower Manhattan leasee's complained about his nose in their personal business, "“Even if you call and you want a medium-rare burger, I will put that in the file.":Was 12 years and $22 million wasted on Whitewater which Ken Starr told CNN in 2019 was "a well crafted hoax" worth our tax dollars? We know now that 83 year old billionaire Peter W Smith paid for the Clinton smear campaigns for 4 decades and the minute Gowdy announced in 2017 the Republicans would reopen WhiteWater, Smith offed himself.
At 83 with billions to his name?
The facts as has been provided by the Obama Administration's CIA and FBI are that Michael Flynn ONLY retired from the military because he balked at the policies of his superiors.
Flynn as a top brass in the military knew how important national security is. But in 2016 before he was tapped by the Trump campaign to be Trump's National Security Advisor, Flynn was doing business in Turkey without registering as a foreign agent. He knew that was illegal.
In July 2016, members of the Turkish military staged a coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,
Michael Flynn organized an evebt by a local chapter of Act for America, a self-described “grassroots national security organization” that regards Muslims with considerable suspicion.
“There’s an ongoing coup going on in Turkey right now," Flynn said in his remarks. "Right now!” The country, Flynn said, was heading “towards Islamism” under Erdoğan, and the military was trying to preserve Turkey’s secular identity.
As reported by the New Yorker Magazine: "The coup failed; Erdoğan proceeded to round up thousands of alleged plotters and sympathizers, including military officers, judges, and teachers.
A Times editorial accused the Turkish President of staging a “counter-coup” and acting “increasingly authoritarian.”
Such characterizations tend to unnerve tourists and foreign investors.
In early August, Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman and chairman of the Turkey-U.S. Business Council, contacted Flynn’s consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, about repairing Turkey’s image in the United States.
Flynn agreed to help Alptekin, in exchange for a six-hundred-thousand-dollar contract.
In order to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), lobbyists working directly or indirectly on behalf of foreign governments must file paperwork with the Justice Department identifying themselves as "foreign agents."
After agreeing to work with Alptekin, Flynn and his colleagues initially considered doing this, according to a source who participated in the discussions, but they concluded that it wasn’t necessary, since Alptekin was not a Turkish official and the funds were not Turkish government funds.
Instead, they filed with Congress, under the Lobbying Disclosures Act. Flynn was merely helping a businessman, they rationalized, and not acting as an agent of a foreign government.
Flynn wasn't "unmasked." There was NO mask on him. Only 54 reports by CIA and FBI that Flynn was a National Security Risk which is Flynn's own fault.
I am looking forward to Obama mopping the floor with Republicans who are already worried that Trump's attempt to put Obama and by association, Biden in jail is going to back fire big time.
Here's why, Trump himself brokered business deals with China while a "sitting president." He lost his contracts with Mexico for his Menswear manufacturing (which explains why he is so hot to build a wall to make sure Mexico loses trade). So, he needed another contract for himself.
Meanwhile, while he is accusing Biden and HIS son, Hunter of crime, Trump while using the power of his office, got Ivanka Chinese trademarks the US Patent office wouldn't give her.
She bought the old Adrienne Vittadini designer collection and thought all she had to do was slap her name on the labels. But to show how stupid she is, she didn't realize those designs were all trademarked and in the US Trademarks cannot be bought or transferred not even to the Princess.
So Daddy shook down the Chinese with those tariffs he tried to make appear was for the country when all the time it was to get Chinese cheap labor to manufacture Trump Menswear and to get Ivanka Chinese trademarks.
Didn't do her a bit of good. The US Trademark wouldn't accept her Chinese Trademarks to sell the Vittadini designs in the US. Poor Lil Princess then had to sell of the entire designer collection.
A constituency, that you belong to, now exists—a permanently mobilized audience on the Trumpist right primed to believe that the big takedown of the deep state is just around the corner. Whereas people on the left and center-left used to eagerly await Mueller Time, a large constituency on the right is now awaiting some kind of moment of truth in which Barr and Durham hold to account the cabal that tried to take down a president.
In a world with only one hoax—the hoax intended to slime Trump—it all goes back to the Russia investigation.
But Trump and his supporters need to keep up their attack on the Russia probe for one big reason: Bob Mueller’s findings were actually devastating for the president, and only by continually promoting belief in the evils of the investigation can Trump’s defenders evade the importance and magnitude of those findings.
No, Mueller didn’t prosecute anyone for collusion. But the portrait painted in Volume I of his report was of a campaign eager to benefit from Russian electoral interference, in touch with a wide range of Russian operatives and cutouts, and frankly uninterested in the basics of loyalty and patriotism. And the portrait in Volume II was of repeated efforts—arguably criminal—to stymie the investigation of that earlier conduct.
So, you keep clinging to your narrative, while the rest of us will keep understanding that there was Russian interference in 2016 - and for some unpatriotic reason - Donald J. Trump obstructed the investigation of that interference and you support him in doing so.
(borrowed from an opinion in The Atlantic - May 5, 2020)Trump Tower in Manhattan was home to 5 Russian oligarchs who leased an entire floor of that building. It so badly spooked other tenants of the building that they began to leave when their leases were up.
The neighboring businesses also were skittish about Russian oligarchs splashing their money all over in the high end 5th business district.
They knew Trump was laundering Russia and Saudi money in NJ and were afraid to trust the oligarchs for fear their may be implicated in Trump's money laundering schemes.Let's all just take our hydroxychloroquine and we can put a stop to all this madness.
Thanks,Charlee, that's really gracious of you. As Americans we really have to fact-check. Perhaps, more positive exchanges will be forthcoming. Please, stay safe.
Update
A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered Judge Sullivan the judge hearing the case against former national security adviser General Michael Flynn to respond to a petition by Flynn for the charges against him to be dismissed.
Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell earlier this week had filed an emergency writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking that the prosecution against Flynn be dismissed as the Justice Department has requested, and for Judge Emmet Sullivan to be taken off the case.
The order issued 5/21/20 directs Judge Sullivan to file a response by June 1, and invited the government to respond "in its discretion within the same 10-day period.".Actually, Charlee, just for clarification: It's the extreme right wing that comes off as arrogant, and I wasn't referring to myself in the least. Understand I was writing to you not myself. That's the tricky language the right uses to discredit or undermine others.
For clarification, you wrote:
"I certainly did not in any respect address you as uninformed or arrogant."
I requested that you not respond to me with arrogance. Linguistically, it's perfectly clear. It's there in my post. Thankfully, you complied.
However, fellow writers are curious about the truthfulness of other Fox stories.I guess I was shocked that you took it for granted I was going to reply to any kind of rude manner. Not sure why you felt you had the right to address me as right-wing or that you expected me to come back at you with right-wing crap.
Your statement -- "And don't come back with angry right wing crap because I'm very informed."
Your statement ---" Don't tell me I'm off topic; keep that arrogant condescending stuff to yourself. If Fox screwed up once, they can do it again."
First, you assume I am right-winger.
Then you assumed I would tell you you were off subject.
Then you assume I feel you are an uninformed person.
Then you assume I might respond in a rude manner, possibly displaying arrogance and condescension.
It seems to me you may have assumed too much about a mere stranger. It very much appears you were been very defensive, for no reason.
Why, not get to know me, before you start disliking me. LOL
As a "fellow writer" I would say it is not the truthfulness of Fox story presentations, that I question, but the bias/spin of their presentations.
I will freely admit that Fox presents stories in the light of a conservative perspective, but just as freely I would declare that CNN would present the same stories in a liberal perspective.
Speaking only to their, (Fox), news presentations, not their pundits, I have found Fox to be mostly truthful in their news stories—even if they are presented in a way that enhances a Conservative perspective. To criticize their Conservative bias is no different than criticizing CNN's Liberal bias.
Perhaps your implied view wouldn't be so critical if you discounted their pundit segments and spoke only to their news segments. I think the same applies to CNN. Their news segments, (in my opinion), focus on anti-Trump issues, but even so they are generally truthful. Their pundits, (again in my opinion), are no different from Fox's pundits—biased as hell.
GAAn update on the subject of this thread ---
FBI director orders internal review of Flynn investigation
May 22, 2020
WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Christopher Wray has ordered an internal review into possible misconduct in the investigation of former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn, the bureau said Friday.
The review will examine whether any employees engaged in misconduct during the course of the investigation and evaluate whether any improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made.
May 26, 2020 --
Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified the transcripts of the phone calls between former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak, a senior administration official confirmed to The Post.
The move by Grenell comes on the same day he was replaced by former Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tx.), who was sworn in Tuesday after being confirmed to the position by the Senate in a 49-44 vote Thursday.
Now that the declassification review process for those transcripts is complete, his successor Ratcliffe will decide whether they are released.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/trump-int … n-kislyak/
So, will these documents cause all that smoke to ignite or will it just add more smoke.?The requests to unmask Flynn were made before any of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak where Obama sanctions or the Israel vote were discussed. Which would mean that Flynn had been having discussions with Kislyak prior to the things he ended up lying about to the FBI, which was him asking Russia to not react to sanctions and to vote a certain way towards Israel because of the intentions the incoming administration. Him asking Russia to vote a certain way seems like a negotiation in violation of the Logan Act.
Here's some information from the House of Representatives:
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/doc … entID=1004
Plenty of smoke on that Obstruction of Justice that Trump committed in asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn before firing him.Michael Flynn transcripts reveal plenty except crime or collusion!
"They were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn’s calls are deeply disturbing — not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence. The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice Department and by Congress, starting with next week’s Senate testimony by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
It turns out Flynn’s calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn asked the Russian to focus on “common enemies” in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East. The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions."
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 … -collusionJust as food for thought, here is an opposing interpretation of the Flynn transcripts:
Newly Released Transcripts Show Michael Flynn Betrayed the United States
As a note, I read the transcripts and I would go with The Hill's interpretation.
I think the transcripts are in Flynn's favor.
GAWell excuuuussseee me.
But, when you read the Flynn transcripts, which 'opinion' do you think is a more accurate one? The Hill's or Mother Jones? Or Politico or CNN?
The Hill
Michael Flynn transcripts reveal plenty except crime or collusion
Mother Jones
Newly Released Transcripts Show Michael Flynn Betrayed the United States
Politico
Flynn urged Russian ambassador to take 'reciprocal' actions, transcripts show
CNN
New documents show Flynn told Russian ambassador not to escalate on sanctions
GA
GA, The media coverage of the transcript is 10 to 1 ( Mother Jones versus The Hill) Google has a wonderful algorithm. I have also read the transcripts and also go with the Hills interpretation. And yes, the transcript provides incite into the calls, and the context of those calls showed nothing of any form of criminal or subversive intent.
GA, do you feel concerned over what the Obama administration appears to have perpetrated leading up to and after the in the 2016 election? It is, unfortunately, is becoming very clear many crimes have been committed.Since when is defending the country from Russian interference in our elections a crime? For a party that sings Nationalism, you sure do spend more time attacking Americans than understanding why a few certain people got intertwined in the investigation into that attack.
Regarding the topic being discussed, how were the FBI's actions "defending the country from Russian interference"?
GAWhen Russia committed crimes in order to favor Trump's candidacy, crimes Trump publicly encouraged, and then you've got transcripts of Flynn (a well-known but unregistered foreign agent working for Turkey) undermining the sanctions the US is putting on Russia for those attacks and telling Russia how they should vote on other world matters prior to him being confirmed to his position, it is clearly in the interest of national security to see if there were quid pro quo issues that could be pertinent to national security.
Based solely on the actual transcripts, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Flynn was undermining current sanctions when he simply spoke of avoiding escalation of sanctions into a war of one-upmanship.
Our interpretations of the actual words spoken appear different.
As for telling Russia how to vote, I heard him say what the incoming administration's position and desires were and letting the Russians know they were hopeful the Russians could consider that. When told they wouldn't, Flynn accepted that. I don't read that as "telling the Russians how to vote" So again our readings differ.
As for a quid pro quo, I have seen nothing that ever indicated there was—in Flynn's actions. The FBI knew exactly what Flynn had said. So they knew what he asked, and, what he had promised, (or didn't promise)
The calls seemed perfectly appropriate and above-board for an incoming NSA. I think you are reading what you want to be there into those transcripts. I think your interpretations are wrong and biased, just as I am sure you think mine are.
But when it comes to actual proof of which is right, I think the text of the transcripts should make the call. They speak clearly, they don't need interpretation.
GAI will agree that undermining of sanctions was an exaggeration on my part. Asking for a softening of the retaliatory action doesn't undermine the US actions.
But in the call on the Israel vote, he actively requested Russia vote a certain way that offset the US stance.
Then he lied to the FBI about the substance of the calls. People weren't sure why he did it then, but the lying made him a blackmail threat, this according to Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General at the time.
I see you continue to believe your opinion is written in stone. After watching three years of the Dem's debacles, after this past week watching Dem Governors and mayors let crazy leftest rioters burn and loot our cities I don't consider the Democratic party a viable political party or anyone that follows their leadership American's.
Now you have heard my opinion... Not pretty is it?
And not sure you noted, I was asking GA a couple of direct questions, due to being interested in his view. I would not have asked you those questions due to being aware of your political left-leaning logic. Just over --
"Obama good, Trump bad".And I see you continue to spout your opinion like there wasn't even an attack on our country, while diverting to the social unrest that exists because a white man killed a defenseless black man in the street. The second such case in the past month. Yeah, I guess Nashville and Rochester, NY are bastions of democratic strongholds. Every major city is seeing protests, and unfortunately looting, to what the black community is viewing as a modern day lynching, regardless of political affiliation.
Today, there were 54 detailed examples listed of violence committed by Americans in the name of Trump since he took office. If that's the type of leadership you follow, I could care less about your views about my party.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-a … d=58912889" . . . I could care less about your views about my party."
There is seldom any gain in stating the obvious. Especially when stated with such a purposeful intention.
Just say'n
GA"Spout my opinion". Oh, sorry forgot who I was conversing with. I forgot you don't consider other's opinions unless they are in tune with your own. In regards to your party, I am very sure you could care less about my view of the Democratic party. But, it felt good speaking my truth, not here to placate anyone.
" Every major city is seeing protests, and unfortunately looting, to what the black community is viewing as a modern day lynching, regardless of political affiliation."
"Unfortunately looting". I actually noted very few blacks in the crowds of these RIOTERSin any of the states. "The black community viewing as a Modern-day lynching"
Where do you get that one from MSNBC? Sounds like their dribble. But that's Ok they supplied you with a line to add to comment on a chat. And by the way, if you came up with that opinion on your own. --- Where do you get off assuming you know what the black community is feeling. So wonderful of you to tell the black people how they should view the looting and as a modern-day lynching. Do you ever stop and read what you write? Why would you think you have the right to assume such a thing?
And what a surprise you used google to dig up a statistic. Oh, and yes blame it all on Trump. I should have said the majority of the states as well as cities where we are seeing riots have Democratic running them. All the cities burning tonight and for the last week but the two you Googled are being run by Democrats. Fact
Facts seem to mean little to you, it actually seems like you don't have the ability to even consider them. And yes it's very clear you don't care about anyone's view but your own. Google the word egocentric.
I think I will stop there, I don't want to be banned.'Where do you get off assuming you know what the black community is feeling. So wonderful of you to tell the black people how they should view the looting and as a modern-day lynching. Do you ever stop and read what you write? Why would you think you have the right to assume such a thing?'
It seems quite apparent that you have very limited access to black people if you haven't gleaned how they are currently feeling. Not surprising considering your political leanings. I have plenty of close black friends and they are making it very clear how they feel about the current situation.
Considering the fact that only 5 of the top 33 large cities in America trust a Republican to govern them, of course the majority of cities with civil unrest will have a democrat running them. Not attributing the difficulty in containing civil unrest to city size is naive, at best. But in your blind hate of all things democratic, you go ahead and blame who you need to.
I sense we'll be getting banned soon as well. When you feel the need to start a thread that slanders Obama with Trump's latest conspiracy theory, one where Obama asked the FBI to do things by the book, things are likely to devolve.
And boy this didn't age well...
"It seems quite apparent that you have very limited access to black people if you haven't gleaned how they are currently feeling. Not surprising considering your political leanings. I have plenty of close black friends and they are making it very clear how they feel about the current situation.'
Well, where to start --- First in my opinion it's very possible that many black citizens did not appreciate a bunch of white people come to their neighborhoods for a few nights reak havoc, and leave them with burnt businesses, and a neighborhood much worse off than they were. Perhaps they would have preferred protests where their views were heard and did not end up once again just showing the black community as being looters and rioters. In my opinion, many black people would rather be heard, and would not condone these riots. It is apparent you utilize Google frequently, have a look at what the protester left the communities they were supposedly helping. What's left is what these people will live with for a very long time.
Did you ever consider many black citizens well might be ashamed of these violent protests being perpetrated in their names? It is once again baffling how you presume I have little access to black people.
Val --- "But in your blind hate of all things democratic, you go ahead and blame who you need to."
I certainly did not use the word hate in regard to Dems or their party. let me repeat -- I don't consider the Democratic party a viable political party or anyone that follows their leadership American's. To add to my view in regard to your political party. The party is nothing but a floundering party with no sound agenda. And I have never been so proud to be a conservative, in my opinion, people with calm intelligence are what is needed to help get the country back on its feet. Conservatives solve problems, not create them.
"I sense we'll be getting banned soon as well. When you feel the need to start a thread that slanders Obama with Trump's latest conspiracy theory, one where Obama asked the FBI to do things by the book, things are likely to devolve."
I did not start a thread to slander Obama, and I take care not to slander any president in a disrespectful way. I don't refer to their looks or even their words. I certainly have referred to their deeds. That's actually you, you find it very easy to slander our present president, and anyone that supports him. I posted a thread about Gen. Michael Fylnn's unmasking, I have posted updates on the case.
I don't think I 'll be banned, I make every attempt to offer facts, and offer my views with respect to others. Hopefully, the monitors here at HubPages will recognize that.
THANKS FOR SHOWING UP AND PROTESTING IN OUR NAME...Yeah good job
Touche.
Certainly did not, and his speech made at NASA was IMO an unmitigated disaster.
At that moment I was never more angry with the Dems for giving us such a pathetic and disgusting alternative to consider... I would like nothing better than to move on from Trump, but not at the expense of putting Senile Creepy Ol'Joe in his place.
What a obvious sign it is that the DNC and Democratic Party is controlled by all the wrong people and wrong elements that we have Biden being presented as the "savior" to our problems.
As for the riots... the brutal murder of Mr. Floyd by four scum in uniforms set off an explosion.
But that powder keg was created by months of being locked down, by 40 million people being told they were unessential and no longer could go to work or open their businesses... by out of control power mad Governors in states like MI, MN, NY and CA overreaching their authority and ignoring the numbers and science behind the "pandemic".
Every state in the Union except for NY should be open. There is no excuse for MI and MN to be under any form of lock-down at this time, the numbers don't support it and they never did.
This is only the beginning... there were already millions of discontented Americans who no longer believed in the system... and now the fool politicians have added 40+ million more Americans to their numbers.
40+ million people that want to pay their bills, and want to give their kids a better life... or maybe they just want enough money to eat... Congress and the Federal Reserve made sure their billionaire friends and corporations made out like bandits... while the people were left to rot.
This is coming back to roost... and it won't be on Trump's head alone... Congress is making a major miscalculation, and when the people come demanding answers it won't be Trump's head that will suffice... it will be Governors like Gretchen Whitmer and high profile figures like Pelosi that the people come for, long before they go after Trump."But that powder keg was created by months of being locked down, by 40 million people being told they were unessential and no longer could go to work or open their businesses..."
I cannot agree with this, for we have repeatedly seen an orgy of destruction and ruined lives as a response to a single event of police going far beyond their appointed task. It is nothing new and to put the blame onto an event that we have never seen before (nationwide shutdown) doesn't make any sense that I can see.Living in Michigan I can attest that I have never witnessed such pent up anger. One only has to visit their local Grocery store (not much else is open) to feel the anger, to see the anger and displeasure in many's eyes just above all those masks. And the verbal outbreaks that occur. I am not sure where you live, but Michigan citizens are plain angry. We are so hopeful our Supreme court takes away this Gov powers and opens up our states. I noted most of the cities that are rioting are run by Dems and are still in the lockdowns. Could this pent up anger and displeasure be contributing to the violence, in my view it could be?
Exactly...
Tens of millions of people are being oppressed, many for the first time in their lives, having never been restricted from being able to live life as freely as they wanted.
These tens of millions of people have been added to the tens of millions of people who already had felt oppressed, not in control of their lives or freedoms.
Dan doesn't seem to realize that while these types of actions may have happened in the past... the amount of people who are at the boiling point in our country has never been greater... and never been so inclusive of ALL races and classes (those below the elite/ruling/wealthy class).
We are still in the "early days" the "easy days" of the disaster that is befalling the nation. Each day these lock-downs continue in CA, MI, MN, etc is one day more pushing the pendulum... and when that pendulum is finally released it is going to come swinging back with such force, entire states may collapse into chaos.Every week for the last four weeks the people of Michigan have gathered at the capitol building in Lansing to protest the lockdown. Literally tens of thousands, some carry guns... Tempers are high in Michigan, you just need to venture out in public to hear the bitterness and anger. This nut case governor has all but ruined this state, and now is begging a bailout from Washington. This nation is all but done. And sorry Ken, but I have come to the conclusion the Democratic party poses a danger to us all. I don't think I have ever been so disgusted.
Suicides in Michigan are up in 2020 - 5 months into the new year we have 2,039 deaths by suicide in which includes 491 were attributed to being Locked down due to COVID.
This virus should have been handled differently, this long of lockdown has caused so much more damage than is being reported.Oh I agree, the likes of Pelosi and the bunch, with their incessant efforts to Impeach, and with choosing a senile creepy Biden for their Nominee are even worse for this country than anything Trump could have managed on his own. With the help of MSM News outlets stoking the flames endlessly.
And I also have argued that in the end, we will lose far more lives because of this Lockdown, than any amount of lives it saved. Because when you shut down a nation, especially America, and put 40+ million people out of work... the suicides will go up, the murders will go up, and these problems will last far longer than the virus would have.The mistakes that have been made with this virus were many, and so many citizens have and will suffer for a very long time. And the media does continue to stoke the flames of discord.
I have to ask --- Did you ever in your wildest dreams think anyone, I mean anyone could support a man for president that is so clearly senile? Better yet, did you ever think the Democratic party would run such a man, and expect dem's to vote for him?Did you ever in your wildest dreams think anyone, I mean anyone could support a man for president that is so clearly senile?
Trump may be a lot of things... senile is not one of them.
Trump may be unfit for office by many people's standards... but he is not mentally incompetent.
Joe Biden's faculties are not all there, and it is sure to be degenerative and worsening with time.
At least with Trump, you know who and what he is.
Biden is obviously a puppet on strings, one has to wonder who is controlling the strings and what their ultimate goals are.
And since they will never let that become known, you can't possibly know who you are supporting when you support Biden.I'm glad you can still laugh about it.
The stable genius just waltzed out onto the White House lawn and threatened to call out the U.S. military. Building walls, dividing us, throwing gasoline on a fire, thumping his chest like a dumb ape. That's our president.
I apologize to apes everywhere.Do you find it as comical as I do that President Trump was taken to task - hard - for not acting early in the COVID crises...and is now taken to task - hard - for acting early in the rioting destroying America?
There is no "right" for President Trump, is there?He should have acted early to attempt to de-escalate. He is not capable of appropriately leading during a time of crisis because he is devoid of empathy for anyone but himself.
He DID act early, pointing out the truth that when rioting starts so do bullets. And he was right - shots were fired the very first night from within the rioters.
Would you have had him send in the 101st before the riots start? I've been told they require at least 24 hours unless already on standby...You and I differ on what type of leadership is needed.
Would you suggest that he should have sent the army in as soon as the man died? Should Trump have immediately sent the FBI to arrest him on the state charge of murder? Or the CIA? Should he have arrested the chief of police, or the DA, for not making an arrest within minutes? Would you have had him condemn the police force for allowing a murder, based on a single video and no investigation (Obama did something like that - perhaps the stupidest thing he did in his entire stay as President)?
What do you think he should have done that he didn't do, except condemn rioting (which he did)?
It was the responsibility of the Governors to monitor the protests and stop the lawbreakers. As it was their responsibility to request military assistance if needed.
It was clear from the first night that the Governors could not handle the violence and looting. The president immediately offered military help to dominate the streets. He was called on the carpet for using the word
"dominate". Once again his words were skewed to suit a negative context that the media hoped to convey. One word had his deed disregarded. The actual deed where he offered military help to deter looting and violence disregarded to suit a negative narrative.
Seems to me the people came second in a battle to conduct politics at its worst. And who suffered in all of this, we the citizens. The Governors. dug in did it their way... and watched the violence, watched the plotting. Did they really care about the damage, the lives that have been lost this week due to this protest? No, they stood by, and what's left, ruined neighborhoods, businesses.
Maybe just maybe, it's time to consider deeds, instead of a word or two twisted out of context. Well-spoken words are not in my opinion more important than well-meant deeds.
It is very sad for me to watch such turmoil due to a lost election. This turmoil has done nothing but blind some in our country to see what they have been brainwashed to see. And create a divide that will never mend. Because there will always be some that see and hear the truth through all the confusion.
And you talk about empathy... This man has worked from the day he stepped into the office for the people all the people, and he did it with the daily battering from a media that sought to destroy him. But. he is still standing, and doing his job every day, and making things better. Not with words, but deeds. he has created change and many just don't have the ability to notice.I know. He's not expected to lead. Not by you. Not by any of his supporters.
You do understand by law the Governors have the right to make the decisions on law and order in their given states, and the Federal government legally has little options to step in if not asked. All the presidents could do was offer help from the military. He offered on the second day of the protests. I can't see where Trump can be criticized unduly for the mess that the Governors have created.
Actually tonight we might see much of the same looting and violence, the Governors seem to be satisfied with their results. LOL
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267244439141056516A little off topic, but here's one town that found an answer. They didn't need Trump and the military, they didn't need the governor and the national guard, they didn't even need the mayor and the police. In the face of a reported influx of instigators and rioters from a nearby city, they exercised their 2A rights and put on a display of "Leave MY town out of your plans" and produced a very peaceful and quiet night of protesting. Not a shot fired, no damage done, no one hurt...all without the need for the military.
https://www.khq.com/news/blm-protesters … 42a77.htmlSad that you think that's all it takes to lead, but not surprising.
"All the presidents could do was offer help from the military."
Sad.Would you prefer that the President has the authority to override state laws and legislatures? To do whatever he wants in individual states? Think carefully - in this case we might already have seen the 101st Airborne dropping into cities across the country.
I wouldn't - the federal government already has too much control and uses it mercilessly to control what states do.Most Presidents would try to bring people together, to use their power to help, not to threaten pretty much every protestor by effectively saying he's going to declare war on them. There are a lot of other options. Trump has a bully mentality and that's what he uses.
I haven't seen Trump threaten a single (peaceful) protester, and don't believe you have either.
What I have seen are threats that rioting and destruction will not be tolerated, and I fully support that action. I'm sick and tired of seeing "protesters" destroy the life work of other, completely innocent, people in their mad dash for adrenaline and free "stuff". Are you too, or do you support harming others and stealing or destroying what they've built simply because you can get away with it?
Do you support stopping the rioting or sitting back and allowing it to ruin people's lives because you'd rather do that than see a thief or arsonist get hurt?
(I'll add that when Obama condemned police for a death, before every knowing what happened, it was hardly "bringing people together"; it was probably the most stupid and divisive thing he did in his 8 years, but he was applauded for it. Is that the kind of "bring together" you want to see? Placate angry people while causing harm to others?)I'm sick and tired of seeing "protesters" destroy the life work of other, completely innocent, people in their mad dash for adrenaline and free "stuff". Are you too, or do you support harming others and stealing or destroying what they've built simply because you can get away with it?
Maybe when you get sick and tired of seeing people get beaten, incarcerated and murder because of their skin color you'll understand.Is one problem worst than the other, when it affects one's life? Does violence help the obvious problem you are referring to or does it make it worse? If you lost someone in these riots due to violence, does it make that person's life less important than Floyd's life?
No, one problem is not worse than another from the point of view of death. However, one problem is worse than another when one is systemic and one is not.
You tell that to the policeman's wife and children, that was killed last night by a looter. He was a black man... Murder is murder.
NORTH ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) -- A retired St. Louis City police captain was shot and killed outside of a looted North City pawn shop overnight.
Around 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, police found 77-year-old David Dorn shot dead outside of Lee's Pawn and Jewelry store in the 4100 block of Martin Luther King Dr.I'm sorry if the explanation is still too complex. I'm really stupid for wasting my time.
You're right though, anyone whose business got burned or anyone who is inexplicably killed by looters or rioters is the victim of senseless violence and if it were me, I'd be out for blood. The looters and the rioters do not represent the peaceful protesters. The looters and the rioters need to be stopped. I hope anyone who willingly and knowingly kills an innocent person, be it cop or anyone else, fries. I've been heartened by stories of police officers, like the ones in Flint, joining hands with the peaceful protestors, and marching with them - finding common ground and peace.
Inflaming the protests by suggesting they need to be stopped by military means or that the best Democrat is a dead Democrat is not the way to do it. Threatening the protestors is not the way to bring peace. Listen to the Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis. He gave a speech today. That's real leadership. Many of the Governors are doing an excellent job while Trump does nothing and provides nothing. Presidents bring people together in time of crisis. Trump tears people down and tears people apart. He just stands there and tells the governors they suck. What a guy.
President Trump is a coward and a man who hates America. He hates almost everything about it. He has not a single ounce of pride for America. He just likes money and capitalism. To him, America and the people in it are just something to be exploited.
Had he taken the pandemic seriously, we would not be here. Had he not encouraged anger by suggesting that the reaction to the pandemic - wearing masks, temporary stay-at-home orders were some kind of conspiracy, stoking the anger of his followers, we would not be here. He's the most vile man the White House has ever housed. He's more concerned with the Joe Scarborough conspiracy than he is in helping his fellow Americans. That's what it means to hate America.Again I was responding to the glib comment you made about looters. Why try to make this about anything else? You can backtrack all you please. I was not in any way responding to anything else you stated. Let's make that clear.
" "In any mass protest, there are always going to be bad behaviors. There are always going to be different reactions. There are always going to be bad actors. Some news outlets are focusing on the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors while others are focusing on the much smaller numbers of looters. And some people choose to focus on the issue surrounding the protests while others choose to focus on the smaller numbers of people behaving poorly."
And as expected you have now turned to Trump. Did you read the list of names of blacks people that were killed by police under Obama? Need I repeat them? And I ask again what did Obama do to help solve any racial injustice
"Had he taken the pandemic seriously, we would not be here. Had he not encouraged anger by suggesting that the reaction to the pandemic - wearing masks, temporary stay-at-home orders were some kind of conspiracy, stoking the anger of his followers, we would not be here."
Actually it was Trump's task force that put together the mitigations that have you mentionTrump felt was a conspiracy. Odd that he would call wearing a mask a conspiracy. Just not logical.
Trump has actually made some positive changes to help black people.Fact'Trump has actually made some positive changes to help black people. Fact'
Shar likes to go with the talking point that under Trump, black unemployment has reached their lowest levels as her claim of positive changes. Let us look at the actual data and see who had the more positive affect.
In March 2010 at the height of the recession Obama inherited, the unemployment rate among blacks was 16.8%. When he left office in January of 2017, the rate was 7.8%, a 9-percentage point drop.
It reached 5.4% for Trump in August of 2019, a 2.4% drop. Now it is up to 16.7% after Trump's delayed response to the Covid-19 crisis had such an effect on the economy.
Either way, the black unemployment rate improved more under Obama and at a faster rate.Obama did nothing for Black people... Nothing
Today, the national black unemployment rate is at an all-time low of 5.5 percent. Unemployment for black women is even lower, at just 4.4 percent.
President Trump also understands that the foundation of economic success is a quality education. That’s why he signed a $360 million grant to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities last year — by far the most that any president has ever appropriated for HBCUs
The FIRST STEP Act also included significant reforms to address recidivism, such as helping prisons improve their rehabilitation programs and allowing non-violent inmates to earn early-release credits for good behavior more easily. Thanks to this legislation, non-violent inmates will now be equipped with the professional and social skills they need to become productive members of society following their release.
Reforming the criminal justice system. By eliminating the sentencing disparities caused by the horrendous Clinton-era crime bill, which disproportionately affected African Americans,
In addition, President Trump’s “Opportunity Zones” initiative is spurring even more economic growth in underdeveloped communities around the country. Through targeted tax incentives, the initiative is projected to generate approximately $100 billion of new private investment in communities that need it most.
No Jobs, No Purpose... No Peace.
Continued Lock Downs = Continued Riots.
That is where we are at, make it about something else if you want to.
People are not burning, pillaging, murdering day after day because one man was killed.
All I have wanted him to do, from the beginning, is to show leadership and try to bring us together. He has done the exact opposite. I know you understand what I am saying but either you enjoy watching him fan the flames or you willfully deny he is doing so to ease your conscience.
Whichever it is, between this thread and the other, it is clear you are nto truly registering his destructive role in this crisis."All I have wanted him to do, from the beginning, is to show leadership and try to bring us together. "
He did that. Of course we have to recognize that nothing he could have said or done would satisfy you, for everything he does is wrong.
No, I'm not registering his destructive role in this crises. You, on the other hand, will "register" exactly that regardless of what he does or says.
How do you think Trump's retweet of the guy saying "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" went over? Did that help to calm folks, you think?
Very presidential. I'm sure it will go down in the history books right alongside "All we have to fear is fear itself".
A contributory factor? If I had to guess I would say "probably". But it is NOT the sole, or even primary, cause for rioting over police actions is nothing new.
I agree the problem of rioting is not new, especially over police brutality. But this rioting has gone on now for a week and does not look to be slowing in any respect. And have we seen nationwide rioting that would come close to this kind of destruction and mayhem? I was just trying to express the lockdown may have well added to peoples already pent up anger over many problems that the virus has brought about.
I cannot agree with this, for we have repeatedly seen an orgy of destruction and ruined lives as a response to a single event of police going far beyond their appointed task.
I think that's where you and many are wrong. Those responses are not because of a single event. That is the point.Said simply but eloquently ---I agree not one single event caused this kind of uproar it's due to many, many single events that led up to this. Problems that have not been addressed, and should have been seriously addressed long ago.
Indeed... and that we can both see it says a lot, because we share very different perspectives on a great many issues.
And this is not at all restricted to America, things are far worse in a great many countries, from France to South Africa the riots are growing, the looting is increasing, the anger is mounting.
If you don't think adding 40 million people to the millions who were already sitting around with no purpose in life isn't inflaming matters more, I don't know what to tell you.
To me its common sense. Simple as adding 40 million with nothing to do to the millions who already had nothing to do.If it's common sense that people sitting at home turn violent, what caused the riots in the past? No shutdown, so what caused those?
Answer; the same that caused this one. And it wasn't the shutdown of the country.I don't think you comprehend what is going on or how extensive it is.
This isn't JUST in LA like the LA riots were... or JUST in Detroit like those riots were.
This is going on in almost EVERY major Democrat/Progressive city.
LA... Orlando... Oakland...Detroit... NY City... etc. etc.
And its gaining momentum, its not slowing... BECAUSE NO ONE HAS A JOB TO GO TO... BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL ON LOCK DOWN in these places.
If you are not aware of the extent these riots, of the police being killed and attacked, of the looting and attacks spreading from one community to another, I can't help that... but this is larger than anything that has occured in the last fifty years by a large margin... and its growing daily.
It's so obvious to me that the reason for these riots is that people are fed up that Joe Scarborough isn't in jail yet.
Trump re-tweeted a video this weekend in which a man said "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat".
Now that's de-escalation. Trump is clearly interested in stoking hatred and creating violence, not minimizing it.
Can you imagine if Obama had re-tweeted a video of somebody saying "the only good Republican is a dead Republican"?
And I watched the video. The guy specifically says he means that in only a political sense and expected an overreaction. Unfortunately, when he said it, the audience cheered. And Trump cheered by retweeting.Not sure what Trump's comment has to do with the topic of the rioting being caused by the shutdown vs past riots caused by the death of a black man by police.
You're doing it again, Crank - ignoring what was said to revert to "Trump bad man!". Do you think a major cause of the riots was the shutdown over the last few weeks, or does past rioting after a police killing say different?The riots are a direct result of yet another African American being murdered by police. I think African Americans are a bit tired of watching people who look like them be abused and killed for minor offenses.
However, the fact that so many people are out of work certainly makes it easier for people to riot.
They go together, but history says that regardless of the unemployment level, folks would be upset.
Isn't the rioting about Joe Scarborough not being in jail though? That guy murdered one of his aides apparently. People should be understandably upset about that.
And let me just end by saying that being a police officer in this country is as hard a job as there is."The riots are a direct result of yet another African American being murdered by police. I think African Americans are a bit tired of watching people who look like them be abused and killed for minor offenses."
"Isn't the rioting about Joe Scarborough not being in jail though? That guy murdered one of his aides apparently. People should be understandably upset about that."
No, it's about looting and burning, and violence at this point. Most don't even know the name of George Floyd.
So, looting and burning and beating up on women will fix things?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267244439141056516No, it's about looting and burning, and violence at this point. Most don't even know the name of George Floyd.
SMHThat's usually the general white reaction to virtually any protest involving black people. Almost always - it's just about the looting and the burning. There's no actual issue.
So why don't the protestors know the name of George Floyd? Too dumb? Too thuggish?
In any mass protest, there are always going to be bad behaviors. There are always going to be different reactions. There are always going to be bad actors. Some news outlets are focusing on the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors while others are focusing on the much smaller numbers of looters. And some people choose to focus on the issue surrounding the protests while others choose to focus on the smaller numbers of people behaving poorly.What a glib statement... Do you actually realize how many will ultimately be hurt in one was your another due to these riots? I think you may want to do some research on how much damage has been done, and how mant=y were killed, and physically hurt.
Have you seen the devastation in New York and Minnipolous, Chicago? Do you even realize how this will affect so many lives, their very livelihood?I forgot. I have to keep things simple.
If George Floyd had not been murdered, there would be no rioting.
And nobody supports the rioters or the looters. That should be obvious. But to say these protests are about the rioting and the looting is a white reaction of burying one's head in the sand in an attempt to blame behaviors on imagined instigators, be they Antifa or anyone else. Most rational people I have seen have denounced the rioting.
But it's so easy for us privileged people to denounce the rioting when we can send our children out confidently into the world, unafraid that they will be harassed by police or killed by them, when we don't have to warn our children about being aware that just because of the color of their skin, they might be harassed or followed or killed.
I'm white. I've never been scared to go anywhere in my life. Many black people are scared every time they step outside because they're presumed guilty for something.The murder of Floyd was just the spark that set off the powder keg.
These riots would not be occurring if not for the 3 month lockdown.
And 40+ million people without jobs.
And millions of students with no schools or futures to tend to.
There may have a been a LOCAL protest that turned into a riot... but this would not be an escalating National emergency if not for the lockdowns and a unresponsive and callous Congress that sent trillions to the corporations and only a measly $1,200 to the people who no longer have work or school to occupy their focus.
We now have 11 police murdered during these riots. Some killed without warning or because of anything done other than being a police officer on duty at the wrong place and time.
Without the police, we will have anarchy, you will have to fight to survive daily... when you go outside your home to get groceries, when you go to work if you have a job, when you stop for gas... you will constantly need to be ready to fight for your life.
It will either be that... or martial law... we as a nation have crossed the line... as I suspected months ago that this "lock-down" could lead to this point, but this is an area I am somewhat of an expert in, so I could see the signs of what was to come.
Things are going to escalate, and it has little to do with Floyd's Murder now, it has to do with years of the Democrats in DC calling Trump a traitor and trying to impeach him, and of media sources taking extreme sides, and painting entirely separate pictures.
The extremists on one side have been primed to create chaos and go against anything Trump says... and the rest of us have little choice but to back Trump, even to the point of Martial Law and shooting of looters and rioters. If we don't, we have anarchy, we have murdering and pillaging and survival of the fittest. Most Americans whether they loathe Trump or not, will side with Law and Order over Chaos.
This is where we are at... next comes the National Guard being rolled out in places like LA and NYC, and if that fails, Federal Martial Law will come to those States.
I am very thankful I live in a State where it is a right to protect yourself and your home. And in my county in particular, the police WANT you to defend yourself and your home... they don't cater to the criminals, you break into a home or business here, you've lost all rights to life."And nobody supports the rioters or the looters. That should be obvious."
This is not true; I have seen more than a few social media posts to the effect that it is necessary to gain attention to the protests. This is not unheard of or new; we've always seen more than a few people declaring that it they cannot interrupt lives, and cause great disruption of other's lives, then the protest will not accomplish it's goal. I decided quite some time ago that such disruption, up to and including rioting, was an integral part of the planning for many if not most protests. Probably not for these rather spontaneous eruptions of both protest and rioting, but when we are now seeing reports and claims that all the rioting is done from out-of-area people that could well be wrong.
Certainly rioting is planned when one attends with weapons (clubs, molotov coctails, etc.), when stacks of bricks and other "throwables" are already on site before the protest starts, when "protesters" come prepared with crowbars and other tools to tear down boarded up windows and doors, and that's what is being found today.Never mind social media... CNN fully supports them and excuses all their criminal activity.
You're right - mainstream media is playing the game as well. As are politicians, movie stars and sports figures. People we look up to (for some ungodly reason) and are the idols of millions.
I was responding to your comment --- "In any mass protest, there are always going to be bad behaviors. There are always going to be different reactions. There are always going to be bad actors. Some news outlets are focusing on the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors while others are focusing on the much smaller numbers of looters. And some people choose to focus on the issue surrounding the protests while others choose to focus on the smaller numbers of people behaving poorly."
I was pointing out your glib opinion, not considering those that have been hurt, killed, and lost their livelihoods. I never said the protest s were about riots. You are reading in something I did not say or refer to. In your comment, you appeared to be more than excepting of what you claimed could be exspected.--- "In any mass protest, there are always going to be bad behaviors. There are always going to be different reactions. There are always going to be bad actors".
I sought to point out citizens are being affected by these as you call bad actors. It's not me with my head in the sand, that would seem to be you. Causuly making such a statement, makes you sound as if you have not considered many being hurt, and many will be hurt after these riots are over, they will be left with the mess... The lack of businesses lost jobs,
ruined neighborhoods. And still no solutions to the injustice they have been made to endure their entire lives.
You are always ready to bash Trump. I ask you what did the first black president do for his people?
Eric Garner
Michael Brown.
Freddie Gray
Sandra Bland
Tamir Rice.
I think the serious peaceful protesters have been in those crowds, making every attempt to protest peacefully and make their point well known. The bad actors that are breaking the law need to be dealt with. That is what I have been trying to point out. Innocent people are going to suffer greatly due to the lack of Governors that they lack the ability to handle these riots, and are making very poor decisions. The president has offered to bring in troops to at least be able to have the manpower to handle these kinds of crowds and handle anyone that causes violence. Tonight, it appears the crowds are even bigger in New York and LA, and still, the Gov. will not increase manpower with the Military. They appear to be satisfied letting the looting and burning continue. Not sure if you have Googled some of the aftermaths, but is horrible, and the media is not showing the worst of it or the many videos of people being beaten by these bad actors
.
You call my thinking simple --- The problem is simple, well defined, right in front of our faces!! We have an immediate crisis in our major cities. VIOLENCE, LOOTING, BURNING! You can ponder the problem of systemic racism after this crisis is brought under control. Too bad no one has done anything about it in let's say centuries, but talk...
I suggest you watch a bit of the handy work these bad actors are committing. We have seen the looting and the burning how about them beating on peaceful protestors, women at that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN6vLAZKuEI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEUmmYDUfA
To borrow a phrase from Island Mom . . . SMH
As I have followed this thread, it seems most of us "white folks" you point to have been talking about the rioters and looters, not the protesters.
As I have bounced from news channel to news channel, the daytime coverage of the "protests" have been similar—coverage of the very large masses of mostly. ( huge majority), peaceful protesters having their opportunity to express themselves without coercive hindrance.
But, as I bounce around watching the after-dark coverage—which is mostly, (almost exclusively), violence, vandalism, and looting, it is starkly different. One source speaks to the looting and violence on screen and another source is screening the same violence and looting but speaking of the 'white' misunderstanding of the pain and frustration of the protesters' and the legitimacy of their understandable actions.
On the first couple days it seemed everyone—police and public, (including white folks), were condemning the brutality, calling for justice, and supportive of the protesters' pain and frustration.
That changed after the first night of violence vandalism and looting. It was not the protesters doing this. The real protesters had their say all day long and the nighttime "protesters'" faces were different from the daytime folks. They were the faces of rioters and looters.
I don't think this is a case of, as you so casually stated, just a few bad actors among the protesters, or a minority of bad behaviors, or a small number of people behaving poorly.
Law enforcement, community leaders, local government leaders, and even many speakers of the peaceful protesters—including Floyd family members, have spoken to the fact that the day and night actors are different—the nighttime actors are not legitimate pained and frustrated protesters.
Yet to you it seems it is a white problem that we can't see that. I would counter and say it seems like an apologist's problem that they can't understand that two different things are being discussed.
I can, and do, choose to focus on both issues. I support the daytime legitimate protesters and condemn the nighttime rioters and looters. That you choose to define one group as a "smaller numbers of people behaving poorly," (even though correct that there are more peaceful protesters than looters), clearly seems to be an effort to conflate the two and denigrate those that address the reality that they are separate entities as folks with white privilege that precludes them from understanding anything at all about the peaceful protesters' motivations.
Sheesh, SMH
GA
Although it may be splitting hairs, I would say my concern would be directed at the FBI's actions. Even understanding they are part of the "Obama administration" I would not be pointing my finger at Obama.
A president, (any president), can only act based on the information they are given. There may have been other drivers within the administration that influenced the FBI's actions, (or the president's by their staging of information presented to him), but I put the bulk of the blame on FBI leadership, (including investigative leadership, ie. Strzok).
My intuition, (as poor as it is), is saying that any "administration" impetus that directed the FBI's actions came from partisan warriors in his administration—not Pres. Obama himself.
GAWe are in total agreement. I do think this mess will unravel into a bigger mess if possible. I am in no way sure Obama had nothing to do with it. However, I feel he is of better character and most likely was not involved. I have learned to never say never.
So you actually want to speculate that Obama was involved? Just throwing that out there are you?
Trump re-tweeted this weekend a video in which a man said "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". This weekend! That's what our President decided to re-tweet, of all the things he could re-tweet, that was his pick, to you know, create some calm.Let me repeat myself, I am in no way sure Obama had nothing to do with the Fylnn fiasco. I will hold judgment until we learn more about the mess... I certainly am not accusing Obama of anything at this point.
The full context to the re-tweet. The context just has to matter... One sentence just doesn't cut it.
Note the words "I don't say this in a physical sensei say that in a political sense" The media just needs to offer full contents of all statements.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRUWR9JbguQ
Well, on the UN vote thing, I read it as asking and then relenting when the answer was no. No pressure, no promises.
Yes, he did lie to the FBI, by most interpretations, (there is a bit of possible wiggler room with his 'unsure' recollections), but I don't see any blackmail leverage in the discrepancy of his statements. I can easily see it explained as interpretive ambiguity. Nothing like a sex tape or such.
I think that aspect pales when compared to the precedents of action that the FBI broke in their effort to present him with even the opportunity to lie.
This one is pretty solid to me Valeant. Flynn screwed up, but only because the FBI was on a crusade.
GAYes there was some clear cooperation between operatives in the UK and within Russia to "set up" Trump and his close supporters for the "Russian Conspiracy" efforts that were made.
People forget the unified effort made by many vocal Democrat politicians as well as particular news outlets (CNN & MSNBC) to claim they had all the evidence, that Trump and those close to him in the Administration were all Russian agents and traitors.
Now, to those willing to peruse the evidence with an objective eye, it is clear now that a 'soft coup' was made, a predetermined effort by the outgoing administration and their allies within Congress, the FBI and other branches of the government to undermine, and hopefully overthrow the Trump administration before it could ever truly get up and running.
Despite their best efforts, they could never get the percentage of Americans they felt necessary to go along with it, and a very determined 40% seemed fully supportive of Trump, while they could never really get more than a 40% themselves agreeing to his removal... and therefore the efforts to remove Trump by fraudulent and dubious means never amounted to anything more than a lot of noise and accusations.I wouldn't use "soft coup" and I wouldn't place the majority of the blame on the out-going administration—specifically, but otherwise, I think you offer some good points.
As described in an earlier response, and understanding that they may have been part of the out-going administration, I point the finger of blame at zealously committed partisan warriors. They just happen to be Democrats this time. We have had other extreme political conflicts, (and wrongful intelligence agency actions), where those partisan warriors were Republicans.
GA
'What a obvious sign it is that the DNC and Democratic Party is controlled by all the wrong people and wrong elements that we have Biden being presented as the "savior" to our problems.'
Well, when the right was screaming that they'd never support a socialist as president, the people of the democratic party voted to present the most moderate, compassionate, experienced, blue collar candidate we had. Now, with racial tensions being a factor, we've presented a candidate who spent eight years in office with a leader of color - not one that stokes those tensions.
Aside from that, I agree with a lot of what you wrote including that Trump will not be the only one people are looking to vote out. Pelosi and McConnell both need to go. They are the leaders of a Congress that cannot do much right these days.Perhaps if Trump had any credibility, he could have made a unifying statement to the country. But he does not, so instead he calls these protesters thugs and says they should be shot. While just a few weeks back, he's praising white protesters carrying guns into state capitol buildings. Instead of diffusing, he escalated the situation with his two different responses.
How about we just say that "It's horrible when police kill without needing to" and leave race out of it. Otherwise it appears that only black lives matter, when the truth is that more whites are killed by police every year than every other race combined. White lives matter, blue lives matter, black lives matter, red lives matter, yellow lives matter; ALL life matters. Why is it only the black ones that get the attention even though a small portion of the lives lost to police actions?
As we approach a 50% white population, we still lose more white lives to police than all other races combined. But that doesn't matter, right? Because we've taken the path of emotionalism and media attention rather than reality, it's OK to ignore that. Just as it's OK to ignore that the vast majority of black lives lost are to black killers, it's OK to pretend that only white cops kill only black men.I'm sorry, but I hate when the "all lives matter" mantra comes out. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the message trying to be conveyed with the Black Lives Matter movement. It shows that the gap in understanding and the empathy required to understand the pain of the African American community will never be crossed by some.
Black Lives Matter was not created to say that All Lives don't matter or that black lives matter more than other lives. It was created because so many people are treating black lives as if they don't matter, are worthless, and dispensable. We are constantly seeing police treat black people like they are toys to be tossed away and discarded - as if their lives don't matter.
White lives clearly matter and most people treat them like they matter and the police, on the whole, treat white people much differently than black people.
The call here is for people and police to treat whites and blacks the same and to regard their lives as, at least, being equal in value."Black Lives Matter was not created to say that All Lives don't matter or that black lives matter more than other lives."
I don't think we could disagree more on this. BLM was created, not because people treat black lives as if they don't matter (check the stats on races killed by police and then try to fit it to that statement) but because they want blacks to be given a "bye" on the law. At one point their "manifesto" even said so - they wanted different laws for black people.
"We are constantly seeing police treat black people like they are toys to be tossed away and discarded - as if their lives don't matter."
Again, look at the stats on which race is killed by police and try to fit it within your statement. It doesn't.
If they want police to treat whites and blacks the same, well, they already are when it comes to killing them.
It is my belief, perhaps mistaken but perhaps not, that we would be a lot better off as a nation if race is left out of the equation. Nearly ANY equation. It will take time, just as it already has, but the end result, I believe, will be a homogeneous society of people, not whites, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, etc. On the other hand, as long as we continue to emphasize race as a dividing factor we will continue to be divided, and one of the biggest divisions is that we are convincing black people that they are incapable of doing what whites do; that white people are to blame for all their ills. Nothing could be further from the truth, but we continue to do it as it serves well as an excuse for failure.On the other hand, as long as we continue to emphasize race as a dividing factor we will continue to be divided, and one of the biggest divisions is that we are convincing black people that they are incapable of doing what whites do; that white people are to blame for all their ills. Nothing could be further from the truth, but we continue to do it as it serves well as an excuse for failure.
You don't see it, do you? It runs deep, I see.Yes, and it's quite common among a certain age group.
Perhaps I don't. But what I do see is that constantly and forever emphasizing race as a dividing factor divides our country. Do you?
Race does divide our country due to slavery and the 100 years following where black people couldn't vote. It's interwoven in our society and it's a lot easier to acknowledge honestly than to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened.
When white people start treating black people with respect, dignity, and as equal to whites by not following them around when they've done nothing wrong or calling the police on them when they're bird watching, then your dream of a homogeneous society might be achieved.
There you go again, ignoring the actual facts I just put right in front of your face. No, today, the black unemployment rate is not 5.5%, it hasn't been that low since September of 2019. Today, the rate is 16.7%.
Obama dropped the black unemployment rate by 9%. Under Trump, it is now up almost 9%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000006
The grants to historically black colleges as well as prison reform were both bipartisan measures that Congress passed.
As far as opportunity zones go, that's just a move that helps himself and his son-in-law:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oppor … 2019-10-29
And some light reading for you, so you can actually see progress made during Obama's administration: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … nistrationThe facts stand Black citizens are at all-time low unemployment, as well as there are more black women in the work field then there has ever been.
He was the first president to President Trump also understands that the foundation of economic success is a quality education. That’s why he signed a $360 million grant to support Historically Black Colleges.
As well as sweepinfg prison reform.Like I said, you're stuck on that outdated talking point that existed back in September of 2019. Today, black unemployment has more than doubled under Trump's leadership of our nation.
Obama increased Pell grant funding to Historically Black Universities by $300 million during his time in office. Not sure why you think Trump is so unique in that kind of support.
He signed the bipartisan prison reform that Congress passed.Of course the COVID crises has nothing to do with that unemployment. It is because of actions taken by Trump, isn't it? Actions like reducing unneeded regulations, encouraging businesses to expand. Things like better trade agreements, encouraging businesses to expand. Like lower corporate taxes, encouraging businesses to expand. Like bringing back businesses from overseas, back into the country. Like actually fighting illegal border crossings, freeing up jobs in the US, rather than encouraging it.
Actions like those are what is causing current high black unemployment rates, right? It certainly can't have anything to do with nationwide shutdown of businesses, right?It is because of inaction taken by Trump, who ignored intelligence briefings in January and then spent the entirety of February downplaying the threat the virus posed to the country. Testing and contact tracing have been disasters, at best. With Ebola, a virus that started abroad and barely touched our shores, you had a competent administration that handled it effectively. Trump, despite being warned repeatedly that something like this was bound to happen, reduced our resources internationally and then spread misinformation about the virus because he's more worried about image than honesty.
The changes to those trade agreements are negligible at best. The lowering of corporate taxes allowed those corporations to buy back stock, not to expand. How many businesses have come back to the US? You claim they are - what's the data actually say.
Obama increased border resources and deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history - all without killing any children in US custody. Strong, yet humane policies.Of course. Trump's "inaction" in shutting down the country produced that high unemployment. You ARE aware that he is calling for a re-opening, right? And that other countries are still shut down, and will remain so for some time yet? Your TDS is really showing through when you blame Trump for the spread of a virus that is world wide and has hit the US no harder than other countries.
As far as economic measures Trump took, from tax and rule reductions to trade changes, I don't expect you to agree - anything Trump is automatically bad, right? Nevertheless, they DID produce the lowest unemployment in decades and the lowest black unemployment ever - to claim they were totally ineffective is ridiculous, and we both understand that.
Yep, Obama spent money on the border, and deported more than other presidents of people that came in spite of his efforts. Not a particularly effective approach, I'd say, particularly when illegal crossings are still falling. He also created a whole new sub class of illegal aliens residing the country - an action that was quite illegal and beyond his authority and that to this day has resulted in millions of people that live here but cannot gain citizenship yet have no other home to return to. You're right (I think) as well in that no illegal children died in US custody - not hard to do when they are immediately taken OUT of US custody and set free to live or die from illnesses they brought in with them. Easy to claim there were no deaths, then, on our watch but it's a very false comparison. Something else you are quite well aware of, right?
I particularly like that bit about Obama's STRONG policies on illegals - in my book STRONG does not include setting them free to roam our country at will because they brought children (often against their will) with them.Speaking of TDS - Trump Demagogue Syndrome - is when you can look at the number of cases and deaths in the US and say it has hit us no harder than other countries.
Again, you and Shar regurgitate this 'lowest unemployment ever' without noticing that the previous administration got those figures most of the way there. Again, TDS, where you can say that a president who dropped the level from 4.7% to 3.5% is better than the guy who dropped it from 10% to 4.7%.
And yes, I do think Trump's inaction on the virus led us to the point where we had to shut things down. I also believe that many states are opening prematurely based upon the numbers of cases. But Trump only has the economy to sell, so he has to promote an opening, regardless of the risks to Americans, or he has zero case for re-election.Tell me, what is the death toll, per capita of the top 10 countries? Hint: you will find that, as of June 3, we are topped by Ireland, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Italy, Spain, the UK and Belgium. That's if you believe reports from China and Russia, which I do not. Here, I'll help you out some:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 … habitants/
You may be able to get away from screaming out that the US is horrible because countries a tenth our size had fewer deaths, but I'm a little more discerning of spin than that.
Yep - Obama bought his way out of a recession and lowered unemployment. And yes, it is much harder to get that final 1.2% that to get the first 5.2% drop, especially what the beginning is taken at the height of the biggest recession since the great depression AND double the time was available. Again, you're smart enough to understand that, so don't bother to try spinning that bit of history either.
LOLOLOLOL Do you think Trump's inaction led all of Europe to shut down as well? How about China and Japan - was his inaction responsible for their shutdown? The entire world has shut down as the only known method of controlling a pandemic, but it is Trump's fault in the US! You have to understand how foolish that sounds.
And then you go on to blame him for governors opening their individual states earlier than you think right (did you factor in the economic and social losses or just the virus numbers?)! You know as well as I do that Trump cannot control what they do, but it's still Trump's fault. No, it's called TDS - the inability to look and reason past the hatred of your President.What I know is that Trump eliminated the pandemic response teams we had in place that could have helped us head off this virus. I know that under Obama, we screened and track cases of Ebola at the airports, none of which happened this time around. And I know Trump ignored briefings early on about the virus and downplayed the threat all during February. These are all things that could have had a positive effect.
'And then you go on to blame him for governors opening their individual states earlier than you think right...' There you go again misinterpreting what I said to fit your own narrative. In your warped Trump Demagogue Syndrome, you have to invent a fake hatred so you can overlook what is actually said."There you go again misinterpreting what I said to fit your own narrative. In your warped Trump Demagogue Syndrome, you have to invent a fake hatred so you can overlook what is actually said."
Really? You aren't blaming Trump for re-opening too early? Here, let me quote your own words:
"I also believe that many states are opening prematurely based upon the numbers of cases. But Trump only has the economy to sell, so he has to promote an opening"
If that isn't blaming Trump then you desperately need to better understand the English language.Did I say Trump opened the states? Clearly not. He promoted the opening, but as everyone has clearly seen, only the governors control such a thing. The fact that you stretched Trump's promotion to my blaming him shows how much of a crackpot you can be.
Statement From former director for counterproliferation and biodefense
Tim Morrison, former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the NSC, wrote in another Washington Post Op-Ed, “It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. … One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled”Doesn't matter, Sharlee, how many times that information is presented (I've done it several times) the Trump haters will continue to pretend it isn't there, ignore it and blame Trump for reducing excessive and useless bureaucracy while calling it "eliminating the pandemic response teams". That it is a gross exaggeration of what was actually done matters no more than the massive spin that Trump did wrong.
Yes, I have also posted it several times. The unfortunate thing here is --- Once some have consumed the feed,(media lie) it becomes well seeded in their brains. It is very obvious some are very willing to keep any and all lies going, no matter what the truth is.
Example --- Today Sec Off Defence Esper provided the truth live this morning in regards to the latest Democratic/media lie . All week we have heard the reports from CNN and MSNBC, not to mention the Democrat Washington has-beens have reported the president had the protesters cleared with tear gas and rubber bullet for a photo op. Esper confirmed no tear gas or rubber bullets were used on the protesters. The helicopter that CNN referred to as a Blackhawk was a medivac National Guard helicopter. This lie has been consumed added to the canned list to post as need be by those that just deny the truth.
So yes, I realize it may not matter, but it sure is fun to make them uncomfortable. I would imagine it might be like a bit of a brain zap just before the deflect thought pops in.
Here is a clip of what was going on at the foot of the White House this is the truth. The newsgroup was NineNewsAustralia. It's very clear the guard did their job with precision and professionalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpzobT-SsqU"The truth". SMH
Reminds me of the "biggest crowd" even with photos and videos in front of their faces.I loved the part when the tear gas is shown and there are the sounds of gun shots in the background.
This from former Secretary of Defense James Mattis today:
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.Smoke bombs ... The truth is no tear gas or rubber bullets were used as reported on Monday in Washington. All smoke bombs... No guns, no bullets no tear gas. Just some media smoke and mirrors for gents like you. Unless you are calling the Sec Of Defence a liar.
And imagine having to use an Australian news report to get to the truth.Maybe your little brain can turn up the volume at 6:57 to hear the sounds of gun shots. And yes, anyone in this current administration is willing to lie for Trump to save their own job. So I don't believe much of what they say. It's only after they leave, do they speak truth to power, such as Mattis did above.
There called smoke bombs, and they make a " big big boom". I can see you're getting testy, I see you deflected. You're so transparent, and predictable. The keywords in your Mattis quote was "former Sec Of State".
Actually, smoke bombs don't make a 'big big boom' as you claim.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … hite-house
Oh yeah, former clearly makes someone a liar in your eyes. If they're no longer in your cult, they have to be a liar. Just a sad worldview you have.
Here's the resignation letter from James Miller, who confirms tear gas and rubber bullets were used: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mili … rch-2020-6
Wait, dang. He's now a former since he submitted his resignation. No way you'll believe him.
Although I think maybe is too little too late, it deserve to be read in full.
IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.
-James Mattis
The Trump administration eliminated the US government's $30 million Complex Crises Fund, which consisted of emergency response money that the secretary of state could use to deploy disease experts and others in a crisis.
From January to August 2019, the HHS conducted a training simulation about a hypothetical pandemic, caused by a disease that bore striking parallels to the novel coronavirus. In the simulation, federal agencies fought over who was in charge, state officials and hospitals couldn't figure out what and how much medical equipment was available, and there was no centralized coordination on state lockdowns and school closings. The team conducting the simulation put together a draft report laying out the roadblocks they discovered in the exercises, but their warnings went unheeded.
Last fall, the Trump administration declined to renew funding for a pandemic detection program, effectively ending the initiative. PREDICT, a program created under the US Agency for International Development (USAID), worked with 60 different foreign laboratories, including the lab in Wuhan, China that identified the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The program shut down in September when it ran out of funding — about two months before the novel coronavirus began surging through China.As I said ...
Statement From former director for counterproliferation and biodefense
Tim Morrison, former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the NSC, wrote in another Washington Post Op-Ed, “It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. … One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled”
Sorry I prefer a link to prove ---" Last fall, the Trump administration declined to renew funding for a pandemic detection program, effectively ending the initiative. PREDICT, a program created under the US Agency for International Development (USAID), worked with 60 different foreign laboratories, including the lab in Wuhan, China that identified the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The program shut down in September when it ran out of funding — about two months before the novel coronavirus began surging through China."
Sounds like fake news...
'Sounds like fake news...'
Which means news critical of Trump's terrible performance. But to his cult, news that goes against what the messiah tells you.
https://globalbiodefense.com/2020/02/04 … -and-king/President Trump again tweeted his displeasure with the prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on Saturday.
“New documents just released reveal General Flynn was telling the truth, and the FBI knew it!” Trump tweeted on July 11, 2020.
In a new 14-page filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals Friday, Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell said prosecutors deliberately suppressed evidence that would have been favorable to her client.
The docs reveal prosecutors’ internal debates over whether to bring charges against Flynn. In one, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar described agents assessments of Flynn after speaking to him, saying they believed he had been “forthright” about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and that there was no indication of any deliberate attempt at deception.
The said documents that were included in Powell's brief went to establish that on January 25, 2017 – the day after the agents ambushed Fylnn at the White House – the agents and DOJ officials knew General Flynn’s statements were not material to any investigation, that he was open and forthcoming with the agents, that he had no intent to deceive them, and that he believed he was fully truthful with them,” the filing reads.
Related Discussions
- 19
Susan Rice ordered the "unmasking" of Trump transition team - is this proof of t
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Susan Rice ordered the "unmasking" of Trump transition team - is this proof of team Obama spying?White House lawyers discovered that Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and...
- 9
Obama's DNI Admits Spying on The Trump Campaign
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
Under oath, Mr. Clapped had a hard time getting it out, but Obama's former Director of National Intelligence was forced to admit that he spied on The Trump Campaign? * https://twitter.com/MikePenceVP/status/ … 82/video/1Good for Clapper for telling the truth. Now, where is Susan...
- 107
Michael Flynn's resignation.
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Michael Flynn is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who has just resigned for lying to VP Mike Pence about his conversations with Putin concerning lifting sanctions. He is also the one who at the GOP convention rallied Trump supporters to shout "lock her up" about...
- 18
Michael Flynn offered to testify in exchange for immunity
by Don W 7 years ago
Is this just "good lawyering"? Or does it mean Flynn has something incriminating to say about himself and his former boss?(1)Apparently Flynn's request has been rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee "at this time"(2)Trump has tweeted about the request:"Mike Flynn...
- 18
Cornel West Came Out Swinging Against The Democratic Party
by Sharlee 7 months ago
Third-party 'spoiler' candidate Cornel West says Democratic Party is 'beyond redemption'Green Party presidential candidate Cornel West came out swinging against the Democratic Party establishment and progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for endorsing President Biden.West — a high-profile racial...
- 9
Who should Congress interview to get to the bottom of all this...
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Surveillance charges by intelligence and previous administration?Top on list are the following :1. Ben Rhodes2. Susan Rice3. Evelyn Farkas4. John Brennan5. James ComeyThese 5 individuals of the Obama years holds the key to the Benghazi affair, Hillary's email server,Russian intelligence, unmasking...