I recently wrote a column concerning a pattern of willful blindness by the media as new evidence emerges of serious wrongdoing by the FBI in the origin and continuation of the Russian collusion investigation. The latest information comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee which released a declassified briefing report to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 on the Steele dossier’s Primary Sub-source. It is hard to read the document linked below and not conclude that the FBI misled the Congress on the subject. This occurred after the FBI misled the FISA court, including the submission of falsified documents to continue the surveillance.
The statement that most stands out from the briefing is that the Primary Sub-source “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier to the extent he could identify it.”
Keep in mind that this is a statement made in 2018. FBI agents had already warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. Indeed, Steele’s allegations were quickly discredited by the FBI. In 2017, key agents were aware that the basis for the FISA applications were dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media. Both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified that they would not have signed off on surveillance if they knew this information at the time. Yet, the media seems uninterested in how this countervailing information was buried, even in briefings to the intelligence committees.
Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate the year before. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in collusion with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.
The reference to the sub-source in the new document is particularly troubling because that individual told the FBI that he “has no idea” where some of the language attributed to him came from in the Steele report. He expressly denied being the source for some of the information. That would seem a tad more than even a “significant concern.” Yet, the Senate was told he had no significant concerns. In fact, he said that he “never mentioned” the information and “did not know the origins” of information. On some point, he said he had no recollection of ever giving the information to Steele. He also directly contradicted Steele in how he characterized the information.
The report also states that “[a]t minimum, our discussions with [the Primary Sub-source] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”
However, again, the sub-source said that he had no idea where some of the information attributed to him came from. That would seem to contradict this statement directly. He said that he has “zero” corroboration for some of the information while other claims were just stuff that he heard over drinks or was meant in “jest.”
The point is not that this source is clearly telling the truth or that this proves a deep-state conspiracy. Rather, the question is why this document has received virtually no media attention — as with earlier declassified documents. It is at best misleading by omission and at worse intentionally false in its briefing of a congressional intelligence committee. The media spent years exploring every possible claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which were found to be baseless. Yet, these recent documents raise serious questions of false statements to Congress to keep that investigation going. These serious allegations of false statements and false evidence in an investigation that targeted figures associated with the opposing party and its presidential campaign. Indeed, the recent documents show, in direct contradiction of prior statements, the FBI used briefings with Trump as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The response from the media? Crickets. Nada. Not interested.
We should be interested. This is why I continue to support the investigation by John Durham and why former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has called for continuing these investigations. The problem is that there seems a virtual new blackout on the new evidence being declassified. After using tanker loads of ink on the unfounded collusion theories, the media seems unwilling to use a drop of ink on the evidence of misconduct in pursuing that investigation. In today’s echo-journalistic world, there is no place for such stories that challenge the prior narrative.
This declassified document and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation.
Must be hard to be a Constitutionalist, vote Democrat and for big government, then watch as that big government destroy the Constitution.
Does anyone seriously think the Senate GOP leadership was actually deceived by the FBI?
It seems to me that they knew it was all BS but that it was useful for keeping Trump under the GOP leadership’s control.
Yes.
Most of us grasped the Steele Dossier was crap for years.
But it was only recently that we have had proof that the FBI KNEW it was crap.
Did the Senate GOP beleive it was crap – sure. But they had to have atleast some doubts – because in later 2018 the FBI was LYING to them and saying the Steele Dossier was credible
Despite having decided themselves that it was crap much earlier.
No matter what – the FBI was lying tot he Senate under oath.
It feels good to watch Professor Turley’s daily awakening to the realities of the Russia Hoax, the lying corporate media, the marxist mania, etc. The usual gang of anti-Turley propagandists here are forever commenting away, but their efforts amount to nothing- zippo. Kudos to Turley.
Ivan, actually we are just witnessing Turley falling into be hundreds of rabbits holes and ragged conspiracy theories republicans have dug themselves into with these “new” revelations. There’s a good reason why the media is ignoring this nonsense. It’s devolved into this rabbit hole world you can’t get out of.
It’s obvious by your resistance, the truth isn’t for everyone. But maybe you will choose the side of truth some day, it’s not too late.
“The media” you say “is ignoring this nonsense is the same media that cried and shook like little children when Mr. Trump beat their candidate and continued to attack him for over four years. And that’s the media you are relying on to see truth as nonsense.
Svelaz, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise, you will find out the hard way, that John Durham doesn’t deal in conspiracy theories.
He deals with cold, hard, verifiable, facts.
Welcome to Hell.
Svelaz;
What is amazing today is that absolutely NONE of the conspiracy theories offered by the left – say Rachel Madow have proven to have even a hint of truth.
While so many of the most bat$h!t claims of the most extreme – people like Alex Jones on the right have proven true.
IF ANYTHING Alex Jones ever claims is true – the left should be deeply concerned.
And yet way too much of it has proven true. That should disturb you.
One of Steven Halper’s mentee’s has come forward tying Halper to the efforts to get Flynn fired.
Regardless Svelaz – there is ZERO doubt of a conspiracy – a group planning to do wrong. One that has gone as far as Obama and Biden.
The only question is how deep and broad this is.
That said – there actually needs to be no conspiracy – it is sufficient that lots of individuals acted badly on there own.
What occured was inarguably WRONG
It is what Nixon tried to do and failed.
But you are blind.
Jones sure had it right about the animal human chimeras they use in labs these days to grow new ears and stuff.
and the gay frogs. totally verified!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvf6gz58xnI
Dear Alex: thank you for my Big Berkey water filter. It’s working great! I have a new cool brand name for some of your store items:
PUPS– Power Up Patriot Peanuts PillS. “PUPS HELP PATRIOTS STAND TALL!”
you can fill them with powdered “bitter melon” aka Momordica charantia — check it out, really works!
It should be a giant thwack upside the head to those on the left that Alex Jones has been right far more than Rachel Maddow.
Honestly – what is Jones’s following ? The guy is nuts. And Maddow is well educated credential – I beleive she is a rhoades scholar.
And yet she has proven to be bat $h!t crazier that someone whose reason for existance is bat $hi!t crazy on steriods.
Anyone who is right less often than Alex Jones should be questioning their sanity, or everything they beleive.
And there is a reason that numerous people – such as Turley are becoming increasingly suspicious of the left.
And that is because Alex Jones has been right more often that Rachel Maddow.
Backtrack, pattern, prepare, stay down wind, be patient, pull-anchor-release all in one fluid motion…
Mr. Turley,
I greatly admire your work and clear headed consistency.
Yet, I have to ask you and all others a simple question.
Smart people in America know the “American Media” is the propaganda arm of the Deep State/Treasonista system.
For well respected American men and women to act surprised at the American Media’s actions (inactions), deception, and treason is our concern.
We know the American Media is corrupt to the core. And, yes, we are disgusted. This why we do not engage in, and disregard their products (Lies).
We also know that…”In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist – 525 BC – 456 BC)
We are at war Mr. Turley. The American Media is our enemy.
To expect the American Media to act with truth, honesty and responsibility in service to the American people is foolish idealism.
It’s pretty ironic for you to quote the saying ”In war, truth is the first casualty.” and then dishonestly claim “the ‘American Media’ is the propaganda arm of the Deep State/Treasonista system.”
BTW, Aeschylus didn’t write ”In war, truth is the first casualty.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/
So, do you believe the media news to be honest in its reporting? I must confess that I do not. I have seen too many misrepresentations and outright lies in the MSM to put my faith in their word. And then, of course, there are the things they won’t even tell us about.
“do you believe the media news to be honest in its reporting?”
I link it’s ludicrous to ask that question as if the media is a single entity with a uniform degree of (dis)honesty rather than a huge collection of different publications/broadcastsers that vary widely in how honest they are.
More to the point re: what I initially wrote, I do not believe that there is a “Deep State/Treasonista system.”
“I link it’s ludicrous to ask that question as if the media is a single entity with a uniform degree of (dis)honesty rather than a huge collection of different publications/broadcastsers that vary widely in how honest they are.”
Why ? We constantly make broad institutional judgements.
The left thinks all businessmen are crooks.
It is claiming that policing is systemically racist.
Are all journalists dishonest ? No.
Has journalism as a whole shifted from reporting the facts without bias to reporting oppinions, naratives ?
Absolutely.
“More to the point re: what I initially wrote, I do not believe that there is a “Deep State/Treasonista system.””
The treason reference is over the top.
The rest is self evident.
It is inappropriate to make claims of Treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, and it is incredibly hard to commit treason.
Other than that it is correct to claim the MSM is not trustworthy – that is the conclusion of the majority of americans.
And it is correct that the deep state has used a willing media to lie to the public.
this week and next will be very important.
pay attention…repeat,
pay attention.
WE KNOW.
We have created a strategy to force the media and the corrupt officials within main government to face the music about the coup.
We have also created a strategy that will inform WE THE PEOPLE about the facts and realities of the coup and the coverup.
We have created a strategy to get WE THE PEOPLE involved and force justice and massive changes about how this coup is being “handled”.
There will be no room for fence sitting on these issues. Just be aware….you will have a chance to change your worlds. You will be forced to pick sides. You will either fall on the side of supporting status quo and a secret police spy state that favors ONLY those that corruptly and illegally abuse it against your own interests. Or, you will do something about it. We will provide you with many different options about how you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
you are NOW on notice.
WE KNOW….you will soon KNOW…incontrovertible, falsifiable material.
we call it “THE BIG UGLY”.
We did not create this mess…but WE THE PEOPLE ARE DAMNED SURE WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE IGNORED.
We will have our justice.
God Bless America
Sundance is about to take a big dump on their parade. The next few weeks will be VERY interesting.
Rudder– I noticed that too. Sundance does extraordinary work. I hope he is staying safe.
Off topic. Trump is already on My. Rushmore. If you go to the base there is a sharp Stone wall going up from the trail. There is a “pee spot” there without a urinal. On the stone wall about three feet up is a painting of Trump. People pee on it and do do the bears.
That’s Mount Rushmore, not my.
Idiot
Mr. Turley links to his own columns, and he occasionally links to other reporting or to primary documents (as he does with the Senate Judiciary Committee document at the end of this column), but he almost never links to other documents that he’s quoting from or referring to, so that we can see whether his claims about them are correct.
For example, Turley says “[Strzok’s] early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians,” but he doesn’t link to the memo. If he’d linked to it, we wouldn’t have to guess what memo he’s referring to. If I’ve correctly interpreted (given “after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation …”), Turley is referring to this memo: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Annotated%20New%20York%20Times%20Article.pdf, where Strzok annotates a NYT article.
And it’s clear that Turley’s claim “[Strzok’s] early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians” is false as written.
In fact, Strzok explicitly states “The FBI has information on the following individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental …” and then goes on to list (with some text redacted): Page, a Manafort associate, Flynn, and Sessions. What Strzok was doing there was pointing out the difference between “contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” (the NYT claim), saying “We have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs” (IO = intelligence official), and then noting that there were contacts with “both Governmental and non-Governmental” Russians who weren’t IOs.
a) Turley should be more careful with his own claims. He shouldn’t be making patently false claims like “[Strzok’s] early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians.” But I won’t hold my breath waiting for a correction, as he almost never corrects his factually false statements.
b) His readers shouldn’t have to chase down the primary documents in order to check Turley’s claims. He links to documents when it serves him, but not when doing so undermines his claims.
And that isn’t the only false statement in the column.
“the FBI used briefings with Trump as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation” is misleading. There’s no evidence that FBI used briefings for the purpose of investigation (e.g., introducing content into the briefings that they would not have introduced had it not been for Crossfire Hurricane). Rather, they write up notes for all of their meetings, and for at least one defensive and security briefing, those notes were relevant to Crossfire Hurricane. Here’s a discussion that includes a link (in the second sentence) to a copy of Pientka’s FD-1057 write-up for the meeting: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/07/24/joe-pientka-warned-trump-to-be-worried-about-people-on-his-periphery-while-flynn-was-signing-a-deal-with-turkey/
Good work CTHD, but it shouldn’t be necessary when commenting on columns by a legal scholar. We are left on our own to discern whether Turley is sloppy, dishonest, or both. Given how his “mistakes” fall, the evidence weighs toward the latter.
Turley is neither. CTHD is interpreting them according to her own bias. You agree. It’s fine for you to agree with her and disagree with Turley, but you need not insult him as sloppy or dishonest. That’s ingracious for a guy who is typing on his website every day, seems to me.
No, I’m not “interpreting them according to [my] own bias.” FFS, I linked to the primary document, and you can read for yourself what Strzok actually wrote and see that Turley’s claim about it is false.
If you cannot admit that Turley’s claim “[Strzok’s] early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians” is false, then you’re the one with a bias problem, not me.
There is a lot of discussion about who said what to whom and whether the FBI thought Flynn was guilty between a number of members and CTHD. CTHD is always telling people what was said and making them go on wild goose chases. Sometimes she might be right but too frequently she is wrong and sends people on wild goose chases. She is a poseur and a fraud.
I am not going to copy the relevant statements because should I get a word wrong in copying she will accuse me of lying even if the context is correct. Context is important and we have seen her abuse of others because the quote wasn’t correct even thought the context was.
For the present I will leave fight to the participants. They can find the quotes that serve their positions but I hope someone engaged looks in its entirety to obtain the real meaning behind the information being provided
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.237.1.pdf
There was NEVER any evidence of Trump campaign contacts with Russia.
I am not playing these nonsense games of arguing competing hypothetical Strzok memo’s – as if Strzok is a trustworthy source for anything.
We have all had 4 years to learn the facts.
The Fact is no russians.
The FBI knew that in Jan 2017. It took the rest of us 4 years to be told.
That’s a lot of words for “orange man bad”.
LOL, Htos 1av.
My comment was a criticism of Turley. I don’t think he’s orange, do you?
“he almost never links to other documents that he’s quoting from or referring to,”
Turley frequently links to an important document in the piece he is writing about. For example Turley included in this piece “This declassified document and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation.”
Needs to be Committed thinks that Professor Turley should be her secretary. What he already does for free isn’t good enough to fulfill the entitlement this nutcase thinks she has. I guess that is why she holds her progressive ideology so close. She is a taker, not a giver.
Turley is not who you need to be worried about Honeybunch.
John Durham is who you need to worry about.
And as the black folks down South say: “He don’t play!”.
Rest assured, he is not playing. He is deadly serious.
OOOOOOh. I’m skairet!
Is he the same guy who’s gonna’ get McCabe?
Can we get him to pay for the wall?
Keep flailing, Foolio.. it’s going to be even more enjoyable when Durhams starts announced charges he’s filed.
When a man calls a woman “Honeybunch” in an inappropriate context, it’s a sign of weakness on his end.
Turley complaints about the lack of media attention to this issue ignores the fact that this perpetual beating of a long dead horse has worn out the media’s interest for a while now. Turley leaves out the fact that this “newly discovered” document. Is a draft about a sub-source which is itself a questionable source. It’s been proven that the Steele Dossier was not a significant source of information that led to the collusion investigation. It never was. Republicans seem to be falling victim to their own web of conspiracy theories and are constantly digging rabbit holes in order to justify their now ignored conspiracy theories about the investigation.
Turley is just as involved as these poor saps in the revolving conspiracy theory machinations of their own making. No word on trump’s unconstitutional executive orders this weekend or Flynn’s case going to the full appeals court tomorrow? Surely there are better things to discuss than how one can beat a dead horse differently.
+1
The media’s interest was worn out the second their narrative was refuted. Nothing more, nothing less.
(music)
Well, I went out with a waitress…
That I hardly knew.
How was I to know…
She was with the Russians too?
My second female waitress…
Called herself a chink.
I finally shut her up when..
I gave her a mink.
Zevon. Awesome.
By the way…. Lindsey Graham has had this document in his hands since April. He wasnt pissed then…. no, not until it came out in public and his back against the wall, is he now profaning outrage.
He was in on it.
Zieglar!! Look out!! There’s one right behind you!!!!!
Not a huge fan of Graham, but it seems the document was classified and he couldn’t be publicly pissed until it was declassified.
This and other documents should have helped him ask better questions then he did. The Russia hoax should have ended when it started but a number of Republicans were never Trumpers at the time.
Ziegler, you outed the guy I declined to name in an earlier comment.
” pattern of willful blindness by the media … It is hard to read the document linked below and not conclude that the FBI misled the Congress on the subject.”
There was willful blindness by the media but I believe there was also willful blindness among some Republican legislators. Today some might act angry at what occurred but their primary job at the time was to protect the Constitution with all the power they had and I believe some for their own political reasons decided to play stupid from day one. I think that is one of the reasons why there will not be a satisfactory resolution of the crimes committed by Obama’s weaponization of our intelligence service, etc.
The only “weaponization of our intelligence service” was Comey knee capping HIllary less than 2 weeks before the vote while protecting Trump from public knowledge of the investigation into his campaign.
538’s analysis of that event shows it probably cost her the presidency.
“….The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College….”
That’s your “Deep State” at work for Donald Trump.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
“The only ”
Keep repeating that to yourself. Maybe one day even you will believe it.
beat me to it.
Timing is everything. 🙂
But stupidity is lifelong, good luck.
“But stupidity is lifelong, good luck.”
That is your cross to carry, YNOT”
No Sane person should be defending Comey. He is inarguably the most corrupt FBI director ever.
He has no clue what ethics or morality are, and even less what the law is.
Regardless, Democrats should not have Run Clinton. She was a crook. Her basement Bathroom email server was a CRIME.
Comey never should have white washed her. Had the FBI properly investigated when it was first discovered, Clinton would have been disqulaified before the election.
As to Comey’s letter to the Senate – what would you have him do ? In late September as a result of criminal conduct of Anthony Weiner – Huma Abedin’s estranged husband, the FBI was told by the NY AG’s office that when examining Weiner’s laptop for Kiddie porn, they found 10’s of thousands of clinton emails.
Trump did not create this mess. Republicans did not create it. Even Comey did not.
What would have have him do ? Not investigate ? Lie to congress ?
Had he done his job properly Clinton would already have been indicted and the issue would not have come up.
Regardless, EVERYTHING associated with Clunton’s basement bathroom email server was an “OWN GOAL”
Just as with the DNC emails.
The left seems to think their “shit does not stink”
If you do not want bad stories about your criminal handling of national security – actually listen to the myriads of experts who were telling you that you had a big problem. And do not send classified information over the internet – esp. to Sydeny Blumenthal.
If you do not want outed for your incestuous and immoral relationship with journalists – do not have an incestuous and immoral relationship with journalists. If you do not want accused of breaking your own rules to F’up Sanders – do not break your own rules to F’up Sanders.
All of the things that screwed Clinton in 2016 were of her own doing.
Ranting because Comey only partially covered for her is ludicrous.
“Ranting because Comey only partially covered for her is ludicrous.”
John, you hit the nail on the head.
John, nothing you say here – and again, I don;t read all your posts. Who does? – negates the simple fact – mathematically obvious – that the “Deep State” handed the election to Trump.
You are the Mt. Everest of delusional projection, pal.
“No Sane person should be defending [Trump]. He is inarguably the most corrupt [president] ever. He has no clue what ethics or morality are, and even less what the law is.”
FIFY.
(Well, almost. I’d actually say that Trump’s understanding of ethics and morality is less than his understanding of the law.)
“No Sane person should be defending [Trump]. He is inarguably the most corrupt [president] ever. He has no clue what ethics or morality are, and even less what the law is.”
Then you should have no trouble finding examples of actual misconduct.
“FIFY.
(Well, almost. I’d actually say that Trump’s understanding of ethics and morality is less than his understanding of the law.)”
You and those here on the left have no understanding of either.
I have little sympathy for Comey. While he is getting wrongly bashed for sending a letter he was morally and legally obligated to send.
It was Anthony Wiener’s conduct that triggered an investigationt hat revealed 100’s of thousands of Clinton email copies.
That was out of Comey;s control.
Of course had he prosecuted the crime that was obvious in the first place, he would not have had accusations in October 2016.
With respect to Trump – provide real evidence, and I will be happy to join you in persuing it.
But policy differences and verbal jousting are not evidence of moral or legal failure.
I am not happy with some things he has done as president, but moreally ethically and legally he has thus far done better than all presidents in my lifetime.
John says “With respect to Trump – provide real evidence, and I will be happy to join you in persuing it.”
Why should I waste my time, John?
You can’t even admit that you pretended to quote AOC, putting something in quotation marks and attributing it to her when she didn’t say it. Your claim:
As AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right””
I called you out on it and presented what she actually said along with a source for the true quote, and you went on making excuses for putting a statement in quotation marks and attributing it to her when it wasn’t hers. Here’s the start of that exchange: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/26/they-were-right-to-do-it-swalwell-praises-fbi-for-using-campaign-briefing-to-investigate-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1982945
If you cannot admit that you’d made a false statement about something SO straightforward, there is no hope of getting you to deal honestly with Trump’s corruption. You’ve previously denied the evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice in the SCO’s report. I bet you’d deny that Trump omitted his debt to Cohen on his 2017 financial disclosure form and lied by certifying that form as “true, complete and correct” (after first trying to evade even signing the certification!) There’s a long list of Trump’s corruption. And I do not expect you to discuss it honestly.
John has previously demonstrated that he cannot or will not admit error in his posts. He;s a waste of time and bandwith who should be corrected as needed for the record, but no hope for him learning or improving.
Agreed, By the Book. John is incredibly dishonest. But I truly don’t have the energy to correct him, as his comments are too full of errors, and whenever I correct one thing, he just posts more garbage in response.
And I’ll add that Allan is incredibly dishonest.
For ex., he claims “She told everyone they [i.e., Flynn’s own words] were in the FBi files but never produced them,” but he’s lying.
Not only did I not say that, I said the opposite: that there was no transcript for the unrecorded 1/24/17 interview, so I couldn’t quote Flynn and was relying on the evidence available, including (1) Strzok’s and Pientka’s statements on the 302 (as they were eyewitnesses to the interview and took notes), (2) Flynn’s own statements under penalty of perjury in court and on his signed statements, and (3) relevant statements by other people (some in a context where it’s illegal to lie, such as congressional testimony and other relevant FBI interviews: Yates, McCord, etc., and some public statements, e.g., by V.P. Pence and former press secretary Sean Spicer about what Flynn had told them about his conversations with Kislyak).
And I’ll be happy to link to my own comments about this, backing up what I’m describing now IF Allan first links to any comment from me to back up his false claim that I ” told everyone they were in the FBi files” (but I’m not going to play a game where he gets away with making statements about me without providing evidence, especially since he’s demanding that I and others produce a quote from Flynn but isn’t himself willing to produce a quote from me confirming his allegations).
Allan is wedded to his lie about me, and he repeats it day after day after day. And he accompanies it with other lies and with disgusting insults where he sexualizes things, saying things like “peaceful protestors don’t know how to separate themselves from the violent ones and permit the violent ones to commit violence with impunity. It sounds likd CTHD gets sexually arroused from such happenings” and “I don’t imagine you anything except in the men’s bathroom at a truckstop copying information from the walls.” He lies ““CTHD, you are a violent individual,” he lies “You call for rioting and looting,” he compares me to “scum forming on the water in my swimming pool” … (I won’t continue with the quotes, but he’s said a lot of things like this — lots of lies and insults.)
He’s deeply sick. And although I have sympathy for his mental illness, his dishonesty and insults are tiresome.
302s, lol. serf serving memos
coerced guilty pleas, lol. garbage
successful lawyers know better than to quote dreck like this in support of the weak notion Flynn is guilty of anything besides naivete
the lawyers who tried to nail him, are by definition, not successful. the home team left the court and took the bus home, while the umpire still hasn’t blown the whistle months after it was all over, pathetic
“Not only did I not say that, I said the opposite: that there was no transcript for the unrecorded”
Numerous times you referred me and others to the FBI reports. In the end the quotes you say existed didn’t. That doesn’t bother me too much. What does bother me is your lack of respect for our American custom of innocent until proven guilty. You had glee in your words to see a respected general convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. It’s your hatefulness more than your rhetoric that is disturbing. Your lying comes in second.
“It sounds likd CTHD gets sexually arroused from such happenings””
Yes, it sounded that way based on the glee in your voice to see another person being bankrupted and have his family threatened. That was solely because he would be Trump’s NSA advisor. Having the inside scoop on the Obama Administration it appears they felt he needed to be neutralized. His position in the NSA would have provided him with most of the important documents that have been showing how the Obama administration weaponized the DOJ and FBI during an election and at through the Trump presidency.
” in the men’s bathroom at a truckstop copying information from the walls.”
An appropriate library for those of your nature.
there was no transcript for the unrecorded 1/24/17 interview, so I couldn’t quote Flynn and was relying on the evidence available, including (1) Strzok’s and Pientka’s statements on the 302 (as they were eyewitnesses to the interview and took notes)
______________________________________________________________
Its good you admit you have a worthless opinion because you have no way of knowing for sure.
Strzok and Pientka are on the record saying they believe that Flynn was not deceptive and was not lying. So whatever snippet of words you think is evidence of Flynn lying the two agents that were there and believe it is not evidence of lying. They are experts with personal knowledge of what was said and you are just a person who is guessing based on your interpretation of some scattered notes.
The other people that you think provided evidence have no personal knowledge of what Flynn said there opinion and guesses are just as worthless as your opinion is.
Kurtz, if you want to reject 302s as evidence for all people charged using evidence from 302s, go ahead and make that argument.
But don’t make it for Flynn and ignore it for others.
“the umpire still hasn’t blown the whistle months after it was all over”
U.S. v. Flynn isn’t over yet. In fact, the CADC hears oral arguments tomorrow about the case. That you, personally, believe it to be over is irrelevant to the courts.
No we want to reject 302’s that are not contemporaneous with the interviews – and that is commonly done.
The FBI should also be recording interviews as nearly all police departments do.
But that is not a special area of Obama era malfeasance, it is just the general bad procedures of the FBI.
jinn,
Your bizarre conspiracy theory that Flynn has conspired with the SCO is only that: a conspiracy theory.
“you have a worthless opinion”
I think yours is worthless too.
“you have no way of knowing for sure.”
We don’t have a criminal system that requires certainty, only belief beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Strzok and Pientka are on the record saying they believe that Flynn was not deceptive and was not lying.”
You aren’t quoting them saying that. If you have actual quotes, present them.
Relevant McCabe testimony:
McCabe: “I remember [the agents’] impression when they came back from the interview. … They felt like it was not clear to them that he was, you know, lying or dissembling. … the conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although they didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview, but the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador. … we knewthat we still had a fair amount of investigation to do.”
Relevant Comey testimony:
Earlier: “[the agents] discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”
Later, clarifying:
Mr. Gowdy: “And, again, what was communicated on the issue of an intent to deceive? What’s your recollection on what those agents relayed back?”
Comey: “My recollection was he was–the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being–they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there. … I had previously testified that he–the agents did not believe he was lying. I was trying to clarify. I think that reporting that you’ve seen is the product of a garble. What I recall telling the House Intelligence Committee is that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying–physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace–that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true. They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying. ”
The summary in a 302 with an agent interviewing Strzok on 7/19/17 says:
“Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very “sure” demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. He did not parse his words or hesitate in any of his answers. He only hedged once, which they documented in the 302. Strzok and [Pientka] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”
But over half of that 302 is redacted, so we don’t know what else Strzok may have said about it.
I don’t know if the 302 from Pientka’s interview has been made public at all.
And if you accept what Strzok said there, you should also accept what he and Pientka said in the 302 from Flynn’s interview.
If you want to add more relevant quotes from a context where it’s illegal to lie (Congressional testimony, FBI interview, …), please do.
But note that this isn’t the only relevant evidence. In fact, when the interview was carried out on 1/24/2017, the FBI hadn’t yet gathered the text message and phone call evidence, K.T. McFarland hadn’t yet been interviewed about her discussions with Flynn before and after his 12/29/17 call with Kislyak, etc.
You make a big deal about Strzok’s and Pientka’s impressions on 1/24/17 about whether Flynn was lying. Even if their impression was that he wasn’t, if their 302 is accurate, then they also knew Flynn’s statements were false. So at that point the question would be: were Flynn’s false statements because he had a terrible memory? or was Flynn lying, but doing it so comfortably that he didn’t give the appearance of lying?
Because the 302 and the call transcripts conflict, so if the 302 is accurate, then several of Flynn’s statements about the calls were false.
“the two agents that were there and believe it is not evidence of lying”
Quote them.
“you are just a person who is guessing based on your interpretation of some scattered notes.”
No, not “scattered notes.” There’s oodles of public evidence: court testimony, 302s, congressional testimony, plea documents, …, and there’s still evidence that has never been made public (e.g., McFarland’s first person statements about her discussions with Flynn before and after his call with Kislyak, which are discussed in the SCO report, the intercepted text messages). And all of these quotes that I’m presenting: quotes aren’t guesses.
“The other people that you think provided evidence have no personal knowledge of what Flynn said there [in his 1/24/17 interview]”
But Strzok and Pientka do have personal knowledge. And their 302 of that 1/24/17 interview with Flynn indicates that he made a bunch of false statements. Not just about the 2 things he was charged with (false statements about the Dec. 22-23 calls re: the UN Security Council vote and the sanctions discussion), but other things too, like false statements about whether he knew prior to talking with Kislyak about the sanctions Obama would be announcing.
Ultimately:
1) Why do you accept what Strzok and Pientka said about not having the impression that Flynn was lying, but reject what they said about Flynn’s false statements?
2) Why do you ignore the other relevant evidence that exists?
Just clarifying re: “false statements about the Dec. 22-23 calls re: the UN Security Council vote and the sanctions discussion” — the sanctions discussions were on Dec. 29 and a bit on Dec. 31.
You need far more than that.
What are you saying was discussed on the 29th and 31st that was “sanctions”.
Precision matters a great deal here.
Why do you accept what Strzok and Pientka said about not having the impression that Flynn was lying, but reject what they said about Flynn’s false statements?
____________________________________________________________________
Where is the evidence that the 2 agents that interviewed Flynn said that any of Flynn’s statements were false?
You keep making things up.
It is absolutely astonishing that you are asking me why it is important that the only two witnesses to an alleged crime have stated on the record that their impression is there was no crime. And these are the pros, who are experts in conducting interviews and making such determinations. The only possible way this alleged crime could ever get to court is if Flynn himself provides the evidence and that is what happened. What you consider to be relevant evidence was not the basis of the case against Flynn but was part of the information given to the defense as potentially exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule.
The 2 FBI agents documented some snippets of what was said during the interview. They never identified those as being false statements. In fact they are reported to have said the opposite – that they believed Flynn was not lying.
_____________________________________________________________________
Why do you ignore the other relevant evidence that exists?
_________________________________________________________
What you consider to be relevant evidence is a bunch of stuff that would not be admissible in court. That makes it meaningless no matter how much wordage you devote to it.
You quote McCabe saying “the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador”. That assessment may well be accurate but that is not evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI. Flynn’s view of his conversations does seem to be at odds with McCabe’s and your view and that may explain why Flynn invited the FBI agents to give them his point of view. That’s certainly not a crime.
jinn,
You said “Strzok and Pientka are on the record saying they believe that Flynn was not deceptive and was not lying.”
I responded “You aren’t quoting them saying that. If you have actual quotes, present them.”
You said “the two agents that were there and believe it is not evidence of lying”
I told you “Quote them.”
You haven’t quoted them.
“Where is the evidence that the 2 agents that interviewed Flynn said that any of Flynn’s statements were false?”
I’ll quote some of what Strzok and Pientka “said about Flynn’s false statements” right after you present evidence for your claims above.
But I’m not going to play a game where you demand evidence from me while refusing to present evidence of your own claims.
“the only two witnesses to an alleged crime have stated on the record that their impression is there was no crime.”
Again: Quote the record that you’re referring to.
To parallel your question to me: “Where is the evidence that the 2 agents” “have stated on the record that their impression is there was no crime”?
“It is absolutely astonishing that you are asking me why it is important …”
Bullsh*t. I didn’t ask anything like “why is it important …?” You have an active imagination.
“What you consider to be relevant evidence is a bunch of stuff that would not be admissible in court.”
ROFL. I said “There’s oodles of public evidence: court testimony, 302s, congressional testimony, plea documents, …,” and much of that evidence was ALREADY introduced in court, including the 302 from Strzok and Pientka’s 1/24/17 interview of Flynn, and for the evidence that hasn’t been introduced (e.g., the relevant congressional testimony under oath), nothing would make it inadmissible; in fact, some congressional testimony has been included in the evidence already submitted.
I’ll quote some of what Strzok and Pientka “said about Flynn’s false statements” right after you present evidence for your claims above.
_____________________________________________________________________
You have already quoted what you claim are false statements. But you are dishonestly trying to attribute your assessment of the statements to the FBI agents. Their assessment was the opposite of your assessment.
The statements reported in the 302 do exist but its just your impression that they are false. The FBI agents had the opposite impression that Flynn was not lying.
Your impressions of the statements made by Flynn have no value in court. The impressions of Comey and McCabe and whoever else likewise have no value in court. They would not be admitted, You have yet to come up with anything that can be used in court to prosecute Flynn. That includes the 302s.
I have already repeatedly shown you the evidence that the two agents believed that Flynn was not lying.
You can also go to McCabe’s testimony when he was questioned by Trey Gowdy. MCCabe admits that the 2 agents that interviewed Flynn both believed Flynn was not lying and although MCCabe seems to not agree with the Strzok and Pientka assessment, McCabe did have to concede when Gowdy remarked that there is not much of a [Sec. 1001] case against Flynn as long as the 2 agents that conducted the interview were saying he was not lying.
The fact that can’t be refuted is that without Flynn’s help there is no USA V Flynn case.
Now, why Flynn chose to provide the evidence that made the case against him is certainly not an established fact but that that he did it is beyond dispute.
jinn,
AGAIN:
You said “Strzok and Pientka are on the record saying they believe that Flynn was not deceptive and was not lying.”
I responded “You aren’t quoting them saying that. If you have actual quotes, present them.”
You said “the two agents that were there and believe it is not evidence of lying”
I told you “Quote them.”
You STILL haven’t quoted them.
You said “the only two witnesses to an alleged crime have stated on the record that their impression is there was no crime.”
I responded: Quote the record that you’re referring to.
To parallel your question to me: “Where is the evidence that the 2 agents” “have stated on the record that their impression is there was no crime”?
You STILL haven’t quoted any statement from Strzok or Pientka “on the record that their impression is there was no crime.”
“I have already repeatedly shown you the evidence that the two agents believed that Flynn was not lying.”
No, you haven’t presented a single quote from Strzok or Pientka anywhere in this thread, nor have you linked to even a single comment elsewhere with a quote from either of them. You only imagine having done it “repeatedly.”
“Their assessment was the opposite of your assessment.”
Quote them saying so.
Are you familiar with the saying “p*ss or get off the pot”? Quote the statements from Strzok and Pientka “on the record that their impression is there was no crime,” or stop wasting both our time.
“Your impressions of the statements made by Flynn have no value in court.”
Duh. You impressions have no value in court either.
“The impressions of Comey and McCabe and whoever else likewise have no value in court. They would not be admitted, You have yet to come up with anything that can be used in court to prosecute Flynn. That includes the 302s.”
ROFL. They have ALREADY been admitted. There are 3 pages listing court docket documents for Flynn’s case — documents that are a mixture of motions, rulings, … and evidence: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=1 (click “Next” at the bottom of the page to get to pages 2 and 3, or substitute 2 or 3 for 1 in the URL). You can continue to falsely claim that they’re not admissible (either out of ignorance or lying), but that doesn’t change the fact that they’ve already been admitted as exhibits in filings; pretending otherwise only makes you purposefully ignorant or a liar. And no, I’m not going to chew your food for you by linking to each document individually for you.
“The fact that can’t be refuted is that without Flynn’s help there is no USA V Flynn case.”
It’s not a fact, only your bizarre conspiracy theory.
“It is absolutely astonishing that you are asking me why it is important …”
Bullsh*t. I didn’t ask anything like “why is it important …?” You have an active imagination.
______________________________________________________
You ask “Why do you accept what Strzok and Pientka said about not having the impression that Flynn was lying…”
The answer is that I accept because that is evidence that has import. The fact that you dismiss their assessment as unimportant is astonishing because that indicates you have no idea how evidence in court works.
Statements by Strzok and Pientka would be allowed to be presented to a jury since they have the best knowledge of what Flynn said in the interview and in the phone calls and they are experts at making such value judgements based on what they heard. The other evidence that you think is important is not going to be shown to a jury as evidence against Flynn because that would violate his right to a fair trial.
If the testimony of Strzok and Pientka is that they had the impression that Flynn was not lying there is no case that can succeed (assuming Flynn keeps his mouth shut).
As I said, jinn:
Are you familiar with the saying “p*ss or get off the pot”? Quote the statements from Strzok and Pientka “on the record that their impression is there was no crime,” or stop wasting both our time.
Quote the statements from Strzok and Pientka “on the record that their impression is there was no crime,”
_______________________________________________________________________________
“Strzok and Pientka both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying”
It was quoted in May and then again in June and then in July and here you are in August demanding to see the same quote once again. Both agents said it was their impression that Flynn was not lying that means that according to Strzok and Pientka there was not a violation of Sec. 1001 (i.e. “no crime”)
The FBI also made it known to the public that they believed Flynn had committed no crime for which he could be charged
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn
CTHD: “Kurtz, if you want to reject 302s as evidence for all people charged using evidence from 302s, go ahead and make that argument.”
Actually i will consider them when they are done in the regular course of objective FBI investigation business and not in the context of a patently biased persecution. Such as the one against Flynn
“But don’t make it for Flynn and ignore it for others.”
I will make the argument when and as I see it fits. just as any other trier of evidence would
“U.S. v. Flynn isn’t over yet. ”
Well, you wait and see how this turns out. Be ready to admit that the final dismissal was inevitable, because it is.
here’s one persecution that won’t be playable sideways until November. it’s done alright. procedural formality is forthcoming.
you guys are only making yourselves look ignorant of how the system works by maintaining your interest
a smart person would just drop it and move on. but hey, do what you like
jinn,
Me (with a quote from you embedded): “Quote the statements from Strzok and Pientka ‘on the record that their impression is there was no crime.’”
You, quoting a 302 completed by (an) unnamed agent(s): “’Strzok and Pientka both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying’”
a) In my August 10, 2020, 9:30 PM comment, I already presented that quote from the 302 written after agents interviewed Strzok on 7/19, noting “The summary in a 302 with an agent interviewing Strzok on 7/19/17 says: ‘Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very “sure” demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. He did not parse his words or hesitate in any of his answers. He only hedged once, which they documented in the 302. Strzok and [Pientka] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.’ But over half of that 302 is redacted, so we don’t know what else Strzok may have said about it. I don’t know if the 302 from Pientka’s interview has been made public at all.”
You’re a [ redacted ] to quote back to me what I already quoted, pretending that it’s a meaningful response to my actual request.
b) I said “Quote the statements from Strzok and Pientka.” But you haven’t presented a quote of statements from either Strzok OR Pientka, with the exception of the 1 word (“sure”) that’s in internal quotes, which is a quote from Strzok. You instead presented a quote of a statement from the agent(s) who wrote the 302 after interviewing Strzok. I would think it obvious that it’s not a quote/statement from Strzok or Pientka, since they’re referred to in the third person instead of being a first person quote. Just like quoting from Strzok and Pientka’s 302 of their interview with Flynn isn’t a quote from Flynn himself.
c) The quote itself says “impression at the time,” not “current belief,” and it doesn’t state or imply that when Strzok was interviewed on 7/19/17, he believed “there was no crime,” and it isn’t a 302 from an interview with Pientka, so you’re also relying on what agents say Strzok said about Pientka, not even what agents said Pientka himself related.
Again:
You said: “the two agents that were there and believe it is not evidence of lying”
I told you: “’Quote them.’ You haven’t quoted them.”
I also said “you haven’t presented a single quote from Strzok or Pientka anywhere in this thread, nor have you linked to even a single comment elsewhere with a quote from either of them. You only imagine having done it ‘repeatedly.’”
Your CNN video doesn’t have a statement from Strzok or Pientka either.
You apparently cannot quote Strzok and Pientka about it, but aren’t honest enough to just say that.
Where are the notes ? Where is the original 302 made within 5hrs of the interview per FBI procedures ?
Kurtz, that you believe “a smart person would just drop it and move on” only means that you don’t understand that CADC’s ruling in the writ application has significance beyond this one case; it will be precedent for the entire Circuit, and Rao’s crappy opinion is likely the reason they chose to rehear the case en banc.
And unlike you, I’m not going to pretend to know the outcome.
I told you “Quote them.”
You STILL haven’t quoted them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t do what you tell me to because your demand is dishonest.
_______________________________________________________________
You apparently cannot quote Strzok and Pientka about it
________________________________________________________________
I quoted what the SCO reported that Strzok and Pientka said when they were interviewed in July 2017.
Lisa Page testified that Strzok and Pientka said the same at the debriefing after the interview.
I also said that MCCabe was questioned, when he testified, that with the 2 agents saying that they believed Flynn was not lying there is not much of a case against Flynn for making false statements to the FBI and McCabe agreed.
And then there is the FBI broadcasting to the world that they believe Flynn was not making false statements.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn
So how did Flynn get convicted of a crime that the investigators are saying can’t be supported by the evidence?
The answer is Flynn provided the evidence.
There is no possibility of a conviction without Flynn providing the evidence. It is unlikely that even a finding of probable cause could be reached if Flynn chose to contest the charge.
Well, jinn, I see that you’ve now moved along to making excuses for not providing quotes from Strzok and Pientka themselves. If you’d simply said from the get-go that you couldn’t, you’d have wasted a lot less of our time.
“I don’t do what you tell me to because your demand is dishonest.”
No, it wasn’t dishonest. You made claims about what they said, so I asked you for evidence of what they said. If you’d limited to your claims to what *others* reported they said, I wouldn’t have asked you to quote Strzok and Pientka themselves. You simply dislike being held to account for your own statements.
Unlike you, I was honest about not being able to quote what Flynn told Strzok and Pientka on 1/24/17, explaining “there was no transcript for the unrecorded 1/24/17 interview, so I couldn’t quote Flynn and was relying on the [other] evidence available…”
And in response to that, you wrote “Its good you admit you have a worthless opinion because you have no way of knowing for sure.” Applying your standard there to your own statements, you must consider your own opinion to be “worthless” for the same reason.
“So how did Flynn get convicted of a crime that the investigators are saying can’t be supported by the evidence [in mid-February, 2017]?”
They gathered more evidence!!
Including the text messages, emails, and call records of his communication with the Transition team in Mar-a-Lago before and after the Kislyak calls, something they didn’t have when they interviewed him on 1/24/17.
Including the multiple interviews with K.T. McFarland later about her discussions with Flynn.
Including Flynn’s false FARA declarations in March 2017, which they didn’t charge him with in the charging document, but which are stated in the Statement of the Offense that he pleaded guilty to, and which they very likely would have charged him with if they’d instead gone to trial.
Including subsequent interviews with Flynn in late 2017, which are noted in the SCO’s Report (the 302s for which have never been made public, but IIRR were presented to Judge Sullivan under seal)
Either you don’t know all of these things, or you know them but choose to ignore them because you prefer your bizarre conspiracy theory.
Either way, I’m not going to waste more time on this.
You promote a conspiracy theory. I don’t know whether you’re so sick that you believe it, or if it’s a bizarre means of trolling entertainment for you, or if you’re paid to promote it, or if there’s some other explanation. I ultimately don’t care. I’m not going to waste any more time on this exchange, and hopefully if you ever respond to me again, I’ll point you back to this exchange re: why I won’t engage further.
No, it wasn’t dishonest. You made claims about what they said
___________________________________________________________
Again with the dishonesty.
I made claims about what was reported that they said.
That was accurate
I see that you’ve now moved along to making excuses for not providing quotes from Strzok and Pientka themselves.
________________________________________________________________
This is an example of the chronic dishonesty of Mr CommitToHonestDiscussion
What I have said many times is that Strzok and Pientka are on the record saying they believe that Flynn was not deceptive and was not lying.
“on the record” refers to the report by the SCO of July 2017 when the agents were interviewed.
The record also includes the testimony of Lisa Page and Andrew MCCabe who both said that the 2 agents reported after the Flynn interview that they believed Flynn was not lying or being deceptive. The Feb 302 from Strzok and Pientka also indicates the 2 agents believed Flynn was not being deceptive.
But CTHD continues to dishonestly demand that a direct quote be provided as his childish means of evasion.
What should be obvious is that Strzok and Pientka are of the opinion that Flynn committed no crime in the Jan. 24 interview. And that is important because if the only two witnesses that have first hand knowledge of the alleged crime are saying there is no crime, then there is no case against Flynn for making false statements.
That leads to the evident conclusion that without Flynn to provide the evidence/information there is no possible way that Flynn could be successfully prosecuted for a Sec 1001 violation
CTDHD and BTB continue to disregard the building mountain of evidence that this was a criminal setup from the start.
Comey noted that these agents did not go through the normal process to interview Flynn – actually bragging about it.
But the process is not optional and not something that can be gamed.
Flynn was the NSA, and he was being asked questions involving national security and highly classified information.
Absent the proper security clearance vetting Flynn is obligated to LIE. Early versions of the 302’s claim Flynn “did not recall” the details of the conversation with Kislyak, not even specifically recalling the conversation. Maybe that was true. But was also true is that he was not free to discuss the details of a call. Communications with foreign ambassadors are highly classified – we are still trying to find who leaked this and prosecute them. While Strzok probably had the requiste clearances – that is not how classified information handling works.
The entire system is bifurcated. There are those with clearances who produce and consume classified information, and there are the gatekeepers. These are deliberately DIFFERENT people. The gatekeepers job is to verify that those exchanging classified information each have the required clearance and the need to to do so.
In his congressional testimony Vindman stated that he shared classified information outside the normal channels – but only with people with a clearance and need to know. THAT WAS NOT HIS CALL. I held a TS clearance for several years. Neither I nor anyone else with a clearance got to decide on their own who they can provide TS information to.
The point is that without going through the “process” – Flynn had no means to know whether he could discuss classified matters with these agents. Strzok’s notes claim he was not deceptive but did not recall. It may be more likely that Flynn was highly deceptive and was deliberately avoiding sharing information that he did not know that Strzok had both a clearance for and a need to know.
Regardless. Unless the agents went through the correct Security gates – which Comey admits they did not, then Flynn was required to be very careful about what he told them.
John Say:
Comey noted that these agents did not go through the normal process to interview Flynn
_________________________________________________________________________
The reason for that was that is Flynn invited the agents to come and talk to him.
If Flynn did not want to speak with them all he had to do was say “sorry I’m busy”
It is obvious he wanted to talk with them.
The FBI agents concluded that Flynn was not being deceptive and not lying.
The FBI agents were invited and they concluded Flynn had done nothing wrong and yet you are making them out to be the bad guys.
It looks to me like the FBI agents were the ones who were entrapped. They are the ones getting blamed for something they did not do.
CTHD, your problem is not with John. It is with yourself. Your head is full of lies and hate. That mixture proves toxic.
You can continue to falsely claim that they’re not admissible (either out of ignorance or lying), but that doesn’t change the fact that they’ve already been admitted as exhibits in filings;
______________________________________________________________
That does not mean they could have been used to convict Flynn
Inadmissible means they could not be used as evidence presented to a jury against Flynn.
Comey’s testimony to a committee would never be presented to a jury and yet you have presented wordy screeds implying that it would.
“Agreed, By the Book. John is incredibly dishonest.”
Amazing, the two most dishonest people here agree that someone else is dishonest.
“But I truly don’t have the energy to correct him”
And yet you have the energy to spew fallacies and ad hominem endlessly.
“his comments are too full of errors”
That should make it easy to address.
“and whenever I correct one thing,”
The word correct has meaning – it means to remove errors or mistakes.
You have failed to do that.
You guys think I am biased too. sure I am biased. but can i predict?
I am predicting the Flynn case will be dismissed, because it is over, no matter what the last minute skirmishes suggest.
Now, allow me to modestly suggest that even people you dislike may have the ability to reckon the tea leaves
I called this one months ago on this web page and stated it many times
KAMALA PICKED FOR VP
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/11/us/biden-vs-trump
“John has previously demonstrated that he cannot or will not admit error in his posts.”
False. On several occasions I have admitted errors or corrected mistakes.
You have NEVER done so, even though your posts are rife with error and misrepresentation.
Regardless, I stand behind what I have said.
Any claims that I have erred are readily available for anyone to judge.
John, I have previously admitted I was in error – including saying “I was wrong and you were right” – to Mespo and Karen, not 2 of my buddies here.
So, that’s just another thing you are wrong about.
Another was a recent statement by your that some states – including NY – had few people left to be infected. I produced CDC data showing that an estimated 1/4 of NYC residents – that would be ground zero in NY state for the virus – had been exposed. Logically, that leaves 3/4 more who could still be “exposed”, – a huge number still smaller than those not infected. You went off on a pettifogging semantical discussion rather than avoid the now obvious absurdity of your original statement.
No guts, no integrity. Lots of words, most probably BS, but who would bother to read let alone investigate.
Btb, you are laden with error. I don’t think another individual has posted as many erroneous statements as you. The number is that high because you have no compunction about repeating such statements even after proven false. You don’t even have enough common sense to stay away from such statements.
Example: These are corrections provided to you in two different postings (there are more that deal with just Berman). Berman was not appointed by Trump. Berman did not give to the Trump campaign. Yet on multiple postings you have made statements over and over again about Berman that weren’t true and needed to be corrected.
Suggestion: Before posting a fact find credible evidence the fact exists. You don’t bother with that and that makes you immoral, a fraud and a liar.
“Another was a recent statement by your that some states – including NY – had few people left to be infected.”
“I produced CDC data showing that an estimated 1/4 of NYC residents – that would be ground zero in NY state for the virus – had been exposed.”
“Logically, that leaves 3/4 more who could still be “exposed””
There are multiple mistakes here.
First 100% of NYC residents are still capable of being exposed – so you have made a logic error.
Next you have equated “could be exposed” with left to be infected.
Precision matters – especially when you are accusing someone else of lying, or misrepresentation.
We agree that approximately 75% of NYC has not been infected.
We do not agree whether they CAN be infected.
Exposed is not infected.
We do not know the portion of the general population that can not be infected. Nor do we know the portion that can not be easily infected.
But we do know that there is NOWHERE that any population has been 100% infected, or 50%.
In fact there is nowhere – not even cruise liners full of mostly seniors, that more than about 27% of people have been infected.
BTW the same is true of most every epidemic and communicable disease.
It is extremely rare than more than 1/4 of the population can be infected.
If that is also true of C19 – and the evidence so far strongly suggests that – then there are very few people in NYC who are still infectable, and that is why C19 is burning out.
I would note that while you can claim that NYC has taken all kinds of steps and they might explain why C19 is burning out.
Sweden has taken no manditory steps and as the number new infections has dropped off the swedes are rapidly ending voluntary steps – and yet no 2nd wave.
It is possible that a year from now we will have data that proves my statement wrong.
The odds of that are SMALL.
But as things stand today – my statement regarding NYC and the number of infectable people is reasonable, and probably correct, and will likely be found certainly correct in time.
Your observation that 75% of new yorkers have not been infected – is likely true.
But it proves nothing – absent evidence that 100% of the population will get C19 if exposed.
I would note there are further complications. It is unlikely that 100% of the remaining uninfected people are immune.
It is likely that immunity is not binary that it is on a curve with some easily infected, and some impossible to infect and most in the middle.
In that case C19 will burn out as it burns through the easily infected people and increasingly has more and more of the more resistant to contend with. Some of the merely resistant will get infected. But the spread rate will diminish as there are fewer of the easily infected.
All this is both Math, epidemiology 101, and can actually be derived logically from the fact that humans still exist – that Nature must have the odds heavily in favor of survival.
C19 is not a once a century virus or a once a milenia one.
But it is a once every 50 years one. If it were more common, if it were more infectuous, if it were more fatal.
Life would not exist.
“You went off on a pettifogging semantical discussion rather than avoid the now obvious absurdity of your original statement.”
I have no idea what this statement means.
The fact is my original statement has a high probability of being correct.
It is your attack on it that is both bad semantics, bad logic and word games.
I used the word infectable. That word chose was not accidental. Your choice “exposed” has a completely different meaning.
And you are still likely using it wrong.
It is likely that 80% or more of NYC has been “exposed”, but only 25% have been infected.
If you have not read the argument then you are lying when you claim it is wrong.
Why should I waste my time, John?
You can’t even admit that you pretended to quote AOC, putting something in quotation marks and attributing it to her when she didn’t say it. Your claim:
As AOC actually said “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re “Morally Right””
“There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,”
There is no consequential difference.
I am not going to appologize because you are incapable of grasping there is no meaningful difference.
“I called you out on it”
No you engaged in word play.
Further AOC has a long reputation for being blatantly wrong about the facts.
So let me be clear. You can not be morally right unless you are precisely, factually, and semantically correct.
There are situations were you can be GENERALLY correct, but you can not be morally correct.
AOC’s assertion is CLEARLY that “Facts do not Matter when you are Morally right”.
I would further note AIC is not frequently imprecise – she is pretty much totally wrong. She purportedly has a degree in economics, but my dog is more often right than she is. her economic errors are in multiple trillions of dollars.
Regardless, please show me a legitimate gramatical means of parsing that sentence that does not result in “facts do not matter if you are morally right”
Precisely, factually and semantically are in this sentence logically OR’d.
I.e. this con be converted to 3 sentences.
“There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely correct than about being morally right,”
“There’s a lot of people more concerned about being factually correct than about being morally right,”
“There’s a lot of people more concerned about being semantically correct than about being morally right,”
the 2nd is equivalent to “Facts do not matter if you are morally right”.
There is a reason you have no apology from me – I apologize when I am wrong.
I am not wrong.
“and presented what she actually said along with a source for the true quote”
And if we could trust you – that would not be needed.
I would note that you are now making the stupid argument that a link to a quote allows you to ignore what the quote actually says.
I provided that above. It says what I claimed.
“and you went on making excuses for putting a statement in quotation marks and attributing it to her when it wasn’t hers. ”
It is an accurate reflection of what she said. Are you actually arguing that she did not say this ?
“Here’s the start of that exchange: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/26/they-were-right-to-do-it-swalwell-praises-fbi-for-using-campaign-briefing-to-investigate-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1982945”
Why do I need that ?
The only thing we disagree on is your claim that AOC said something consequentially different.
“If you cannot admit that you’d made a false statement about something SO straightforward,”
Because I did not.
Unlike you I did not make a moral claim regarding AOC, I made a factual one.
When you make MORAL claims – as you are doing right now, YOU must be “precisely, factually and semantically correct” – which you are not.
“there is no hope of getting you to deal honestly with Trump’s corruption.”
Not dealing with you – you are “Committed to Dis Honest Discussion.”
“You’ve previously denied the evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice in the SCO’s report.”
That would be correct.
If the SC had evidence of obstruction of justice – they would have charged it.
Pretty much all the claims they made involve multiple people – even if they could not indict Trump, they could have indicted McGahn or Rosenstein as conspirators.
Pretty much all the claims of obstruction involve constitutional powers of the president. The president can not obstruct justice whole acting in conformance to the constitution.
A perfect example would be Barr dropping the Flynn case. That is clearly in the power of the executive. It can not be obstruction.
Further as has been abundently demonstrated – there was no underlying crime. An innocent person can not obstruct justice by vigorously asserting their innocence or refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor.
There is a very narrow means in which an innocent person can obstruct – and that is by committing ANOTHER crime – such as getting a witness to lie under oath.
Mueller has none of that.
Actual evidence is not naked assertions. Absolutely Mueller engaged in lots of speculative commentary.
Speculation is not evidence.
Had the Mueller report provided actual evidence of obstruction of justice the house would have advanced an obstruction of justice article of impeachement – they did not.
Because there was no such evidence.
“I bet you’d deny that Trump omitted his debt to Cohen on his 2017 financial disclosure form and lied by certifying that form as “true,”
I have no idea whether naked assertions by you are true. As a rule of thumb I assume that anything you offer without evidence is false.
Based on your track record so far.
Regardless What is Trump’s “debt” to Cohen ?
Do you have some 2017 disclosure that omits something that was required ?’
Is this omission substantative ?
Is the submission that you refer to “under penalty of law” ?
“(after first trying to evade even signing the certification!)”
What does this even mean ?
“There’s a long list of Trump’s corruption.”
If so you should be able to provide an example using ACTUAL evidence,
“And I do not expect you to discuss it honestly.”
The constitution provides the ONLY qualifications to be president.
Nowhere does it list “financial disclosures”
If you want further requirements – amend the constitution.
If as you say Trump tried to refuse to sign such a document – a claim that is an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.
Then he should have stuck to that.
You are not entitled to know about others just because you want to.
Separately from the constitutions requirements regarding the president, would be the 4th amendment – that applies to EVERYONE.
Government may not compel us to provide information about our private life – that is all parts of our life outside our actions as a member of government, without probable cause that a crime has been committed and a sworn warrant that turning over such information will provide further evidence.
The media is free to dig into the lives of politicians. But government is NOT. The entire problem with the FBI investigation of Trump is that there was no probable cause of a crime, and absent that the actions of the government were a violation of Trump’s civil rights.
I understand that you are completely clueless about rights.
But at the very least you should understand that neither you nor government is free to demand whatever information they want just because they want it.
So your proof of corruption is a probably false claim that Trump did not disclose something he is multiply constitutionally allowed not to disclose and than neither you nor government have a right to know.
You claim he lied – again without evidence, about something he was not oblgated to answer,
That this is some sign of corruption.
I have no idea if Trump Owed Cohen anything – I do not care.
Further even in left wing nut world, it does not matter. Trump divorced himself from Cohen long before the election.
Cohen had no role in the campaign, He had no role in the transition, he had no role in the administration.
He fancied himself as important because he was used by Trump – as well as other public figures to kill potentially embarrasing stories of legal acts. Clearly Trump never thought of him as very important.
Do you have some evidence that Cohen blackmailed Trump ?
Mueller would have traded his soul to Cohen for dirt on Trump. Cohen clearly would have told Mueller anything to get out from under Mueller – but he had nothing to tell.
That should tell you something, but you can not grasp it.
Regardless, please show me a legitimate gramatical means of parsing that sentence that does not result in “facts do not matter if you are morally right”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Apparently you don’t know enough about subjects and verbs to understand that the meaning does not parse to the same thing.
The subject and verb are completely different in the two sentences and as a result the meaning is also different.
I made a specific request.
You responded with nothing more than ad hominem masquerading as gramatical analysis.
There are perfectly legitimate gramatical means for rearranging the subject and predicate of a sentence.
I can do a better job of making your argument than you have.
“If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees,” she said. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
Lets start with the phase “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct”
Is AOC agreeing with these people ? Or disagreeing ?
What is the meaning of “I Disagree with those who are concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct” ?
Morality REQUIRES being precisely, factually, semantically correct, it is NOT about missing the forest for the trees.
Spewing bad cliches is not truth – moral or otherwise.
Murder is immoral – whether you murder one person – a tree, or a forest.
I think that Roman Polanski is an incredible film maker, he also drugged and raped a 13 year old. He is therefore not moral, and his body of excellent films will not change that.
Needs to be Committed is such a liar. She conflates different things together to create a lot of her nonsense. I am still waiting for her to produce the lies in Flynn’s own words that lead to his prosecution. She told everyone they were in the FBi files but never produced them. They don’t exist. Other words exist but they do not pertain. It is impossible to deal with this type of person.
Funny, how SCOTUS keeps backing him up, even John (the Weasel) Roberts votes consistently for what Trump wants.. all a conspiracy there, too, eh?
nexus169 – if you think “SCOTUS keeps backing him up, even John (the Weasel) Roberts votes consistently for what Trump wants,” you aren’t paying attention. As two simple counterexamples, Trump lost in the DACA case and in Trump v. Vance.
Or were you being sarcastic?
BTB
Here is heavily left leaning Lawfare in Oct 2016.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/memo-press-what-comeys-letter-does-and-doesnt-mean
John, here is a heavy odds maker leaning guy:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
“here is a heavy odds maker leaning guy:”
Btb now thinks he is at the race track betting on the Trifecta. His confirmation bias is confirmed by an “odds maker”. Laughable. Clinton bet on horses as well because she paid off the jockeys.
That was Loretta Lynch’s fault because she was compromised by Bill Clinton approaching her asbout it in the hanger
You might as well blame Bill Clinton. I made this point and you guys ever have avoided it.
The AG should have made the call, it was not really a Comey call, but Comey was put in a spot– because of BIll Clinton
Lynch was smart, stepping aside on this. She was very smart. Clinton tried to sucker her, and she protected herself
What could Comey do? He also could have passed it back into the DOJ. Maybe there were other options but it was Bill Clinton that caused the mess.
and why? because he understood Hillary was in deep peril of prosecution thats why
so blame her, blame Huma, and blame him. Really, you guys understand this, and you do, you just don’t say so in comment areas like this.
“[Loretta Lynch] was compromised by Bill Clinton approaching her asbout it in the hanger”
Both Lynch and Clinton denied discussing anything political, and no one has ever presented actual evidence to the contrary, so your claim about “Bill Clinton approaching her asbout it” is unsubstantiated. There’s no evidence that she was actually compromised, but she recused anyway. And if you think Lynch was compromised, then if you weren’t a hypocrite, you’d also conclude that Barr has been compromised by Trump’s very explicit communications about Flynn, Stone and others.
Both Lynch and Clinton denied discussing anything political,
ROTFL
And if you think Lynch was compromised, then if you weren’t a hypocrite, you’d also conclude that Barr has been compromised by Trump’s very explicit communications about Flynn, Stone and others.
ON THE CONTRARY. BILL CLINTON WAS NOT PRESIDENT. THE COMPARISON IS NOT APT. OBAMA WAS POTUS THEN.
BARR AND TRUMP: TRUMP IS POTUS. TRUMP MUST TALK TO AG BARR.
BILL HAD NO BUSINESS TALKING TO LYNCH AT THAT TIME. THIS WAS EITHER IMPROPER OR THE KIND OF MISTAKE A NON-LAWYER WOULD HAVE MADE
now even though Bill Clinton LOST HIS LAW LICENSE FOR PERJURY., he certainly knew he should not have approached Lynch in the middle of when she was overseeing an investigation of his wife for mishandling classified information. which she factually did, the only question was culpability.. bill tainted it. on purpose!
Stop blaming Comey and by extension Lynch for his improper contact. CTHD, confess your ignorance of these important distractions and I will forgive you for calling me a hypocrite. since you won’t I will just return to ignoring you and your tedious remarks
“TRUMP MUST TALK TO AG BARR.”
Trump shouldn’t be communicating anything about criminal cases involving people who worked with Trump’s campaign.
Was Bill Clinton’s choice stupid? Absolutely. Do we have any actual evidence that they discussed anything improper? No.
But Barr himself has stated about Trump’s tweets that “to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”
Barr said “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,” but Trump doesn’t have to say anything directly to Barr when Trump is bleating it out to the entire world.
“Stop blaming Comey and by extension Lynch for his improper contact”
I haven’t. Which is why you haven’t quoted me doing any such thing. You have an active imagination.
lol, here is a sneaky linguistic trick these guys play. make EVERY question about the object of strategic attention, Trump, even when we were talking about what Bill Clinton did to help get Hillary off the hook by approaching Lynch which kicked the call downstairs to Comey. None of that was on Trump. But you bring him up and Barr who is even more afield from the point in question. Because, you guys zoom all over the place and say whatever you like.
refer to Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions”
There is a fundimental difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
Bill Clinton was NOT president at the time he talked to AG Lynch.
Donald Trump IS president.
We already have the precident of Pres. Jefferson micro managing the prosecution of Aaron Burr.
All powers of the executive vest in the president.
The president is the cheif prosecutor.
WE do not LIKE it when presidents interject themselves into the DOJ – but they are constitutionally permitted to do so.
And the sole remedy is impeachment.
But Former presidents have no constitutional authority.
Obama exonerated Clinton in a public speach – that was improper, it was not illegal or unconstitutional.
This is going to be one of the problems Durham faces.
What the Obama administration did was GREVIOUSLY improper.
It was Nixon’s wet dream.
But much of it was not unconstitutional or illegal.
Though it should be.
“Both Lynch and Clinton denied discussing anything political”
Not relevant and not established.
The meeting initiated by Clinton created the appearance of impropriety and effectively removed Lynch from the investigation.
There is a world of difference between communications ABOUT and attempted secret meetings WITH.
It is not a conflict of interests oe the appearance of impropriety for the AG to follow the law.
Hillary was never under danger of prosecution.
If you think so, under what law?
mishandling classified information. this is a criminal offense.
moreover, it is one of the few for which a person can be charged with the offense when they were merely negligent.
her actions were sub-par, below best practices, and in clear violation of state department guidelines, but, Comey decided not negligent
now that was not his call to make, it was AG Lynch’s. and I criticized him.
But, Bill Clinton tainted Lynch by his improper contact, and she had to step aside from it
That is all history. that is not even politics. you can go back and review the historical record if you think Im biased and report back with proof I overstated it.
you guys will never cease complaining about Comey exonerating Hillary and letting her off the hook.
the fact is, if a low level state department official or a sailor would have done this and got caught, they would have been hauled before the mast.
everybody understands this, but you guys are still trying to game it years later
Comey actually did her a favor and helped keep her out of the hoosgow.
Bill was worried and that’s why he approached Lynch.
if it was all so tame, then she would have spiked the investigation, not Comey
the mere fact it fell on Comey to make this call above his pay grade, actually explains precisely what happened, for those who can grasp subtlety
Comey was on the horns of a dilemma. they wanted him to just spike it and stay mum. he made public remarks about it, because he was put in a very bad position. he is a career bureacrat like the rest of them, and was covering his own backside. it’s the very fact he went public with this thing that protected him. if he would have kept it under his hat, and then it came out, he would have been the one potentially obstructing justice.
see the possibilities are complicated, but Comey threaded the needle the way he did. for whatever reasons. you guys blame him, you blame putin, you blame bernie, you blame trump, you blame rednecks, the only person you never blame is Hillary. sad! what a sad cult of personality the 2016 DNC became under her. its really too bad, there is a lot of ferment in the Democratic party, even now, if participation from the lower eschelons could be lifted up and given a greater voice.
probably Republicans suffer from a similar dynamic, not enough low level voice is heard. Trump has it, but do the rest of his “team” have it? The pathetic Jared certainly doesn’t, tone deaf to regular people, and a potential saboteur.
As noted in my linked article, which is by a JAG reservist, military prosecutions are under a different statute.
The blaming of Comey here is by Trumpsters who are too dim to realize he gave their boy the presidency by unloading on Hillary in October while protecting Trump from the public knowing the same information about him – both were under FBI investigation.
“As noted in my linked article, which is by a JAG reservist, military prosecutions are under a different statute.”
Nope, the espionage act applies to all. There is a different court system, and there is differn law for military specific offenses.
“The blaming of Comey here”
You are blaming Comey for Clinton’s defeat.
Lets not pretend Comey is some angel.
“is by Trumpsters who are too dim to realize he gave their boy the presidency by unloading on Hillary in October”
And yet the data says otherwise. The very data I linked that you cited claiming it proved Comey cost the Clinton the election – which clearly demonstrates the opposite. Clintons LOWEST poll number before the election came Before Comey’s letter was made public.
Clinton’s numbers went UP after Comey’s letter was made public.
“while protecting Trump from the public knowing the same information about him”
It is not the same information. Frankly the Comey letter obviously had no impact.
The public already knew that Weiner’s laptop had hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails, many of them classified.
You had to be brain dead to not know the FBI was looking into it.
What is actually disturbing is that Comey sat on the laptop for a month, doing nothing.
“both were under FBI investigation.”
The Clinton FBI investigation was public, because her crimes were exposed by FOIA requests and Senate testimony.
as well as by public remarks by Obama.
All of Clinton’s issues are “own goals” – she created her own problems.
The Trump investigation was into fraudulent allegations. Trump did not create the investigation – Clinton did.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director
“If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”
– Andrew C. McCarthy (paraphrased)
______________________________
“That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.”
– Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 9/2/17
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision/
18 US 793(f)
it was Bill Clinton that caused the mess.
and why? because he understood Hillary was in deep peril of prosecution thats why
____________________________________________________________________
That makes no sense at all.
The “mess” as you call it impacted negatively on Clinton
It us just one of numerous things the Clinton’s did that contributed to losing the election.
Of course they got a huge tax cut on the enormous sums of income they are paid for making lame speeches and none of the headaches for eight years so the Clinton’s have much to be thankful for.
The timing does not work.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Comey-Letter-Effect.png
Your own chart shows a 2 point loss by Hillary in that period.
PS Case closed.
““Ranting because Comey only partially covered for her is ludicrous.”
“The only…” excuse by btw is repeated continuously as if btb is a parrot. The parrot doesn’t have a calander nor an ability to place things in their proper order. The graph clearly demonstrates a discrepency in btb’s thinking but he will continue repeating… the only, the only, the only.
BtB:
Reading your comments is a reminder why talking to Pinkos is a waste of time.
Having received some important information that conflicts with your beliefs, you ignore the evidence and double down on previous posts.
The old adage: “Wisdom is wasted on the stupid” applies to you.
Comey didnt have a choice… it was either he release and downplay it or the NYC Field office SSA (agents) were going to go public with it. And it is now almost certain that Anthony Weiner’s laptop had much classified information.
Thats on Huma for synching her phone with her pervert husband’s laptop.
They couldnt talk about the investigation, it was the insurance policy incase Trump got elected. They had to hide it as much from him as they did the public.
ziegler, you are right about the NY office, with which Guiliani still had strong connections – he hinted at the Comey letter just before it was released – and Comey has said he feared exactly what you suggest – a leak from Hillary hating NY agents. However, the rest of your tune isn’t on key. Comey could have easily – without breaking a sweat if he was the conspirator you all need to believe he was – accompanied his Hillary letter with an announcement in the interests of fairness and a public right to know, that the Trump campaign was also under FBI investigation. That would have been precedent breaking, but so was his statement in May – or whenever it was – and his releasing the Hillary letter in October.
Done, and you know it.
Ziegler– Agree. That’s what I thought at the time. The FBI screw-ups trying to control the narrative ignored what Trump predicted–that classified documents would end up on the pervert’s computer–and they let the NYPD have it for evidence of lesser crimes. Once the NYPD had control of the evidence Comey and his Stasi clowns had to make the best of it because they no longer had total control. I suspect only the tip of a big iceberg has poked up but it was enough to sink Hillary’s Titanic.
The Democrats are so insanely enraged they lost to Trump because they are convinced that with all the massive cheating they did they should have won easily. When you roll loaded dice or play with marked cards you have a reasonable expectation of winning.
I expect even more cheating this time around.
There is an actual issue here.
FBI investigations are NORMALLY confidential. They are not supposed to confirm or deny and investigation – until there are indictiments.
They actually mostly handled the Trump investigation properly in that regard – though I expect that part of that is they knew it was poolicitally sourced and that it could blow up in their faces.
If the Trump investigation went public and Trump lost – Clinton would likely have been impeached.
She fed a bogus dossier to the FBI, triggered a fraudulent investigation to win an election.
But the Clinton email investigation was public because the bathroom server was discovered but FOIA requests, and the criminal referal was made by congress.
I would further note Comey did not leak his email – some member of congress did.
Young, cheating is the name of the game for leftists. That is one reason they want mail in voting, no voter ID and ballot harvesting.
Cheating is exactly why they want those things. They have to argue that blacks are too stupid to know how to get ID. However, Caribbean islands with black populations require voter ID. Can’t be too hard.
The only “weaponization of our intelligence service” was Comey knee capping HIllary???
I knew you were delusional but WOW. Comey did a number on Hillary, BUT she actually did the things he said she did. That equates to “she was guilty.” With Trump though, the whole Russiagate thing was a hoaxy, felonious witch hunt. That equates to “Trump was innocent.” See the difference???
You need to add some perspective to your analysis and then you would not be such a laughingstock.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sadie Mae, everything you say can be true – it isn’t – and it still does not disprove the fact that Comey caused Hillary’s defeat at the EC while he protected Trump from a similar revelation which would have ended his chances.
That is a fact.
Hillary caused Hillary’s defeat. Whose emails ended up on the little pervert’s computer?
Hillary’s emails ended up on Trump’s computer?
I think Young mean on weiner’s laptop. His wife was Huma Abedin, Hillary’s assistant
I feel bad for that Huma lady, rotten husband, rotten boss
Yeah, I thought it was obvious whose computer Hillary’s emails went to. Book is pretending to be stupid; at least I think he is pretending.
Thanks Kurtz. I wasn’t sure which pervert he was referring to.
So not pretending then.
What makes you think Huma is a good person?
I think it’s a reasonable inference that Huma is one strange piece of work. She’s a substitute daughter for Hellary, so I assume the ordering of her domestic life has been in accordance with whatever Hellary thought advantageous for Hellary. Why that included embarrassing her family in the course of providing a beard for Anthony Humbert Humbert Wiener, I cannot fathom.
I am not going to rip on Huma. I am reluctant to cast stones at staffers like her, even if she was Hillary’s right hand lady.
I am sure there are decent Americans in the Clintons’ orbit, even if they are a wretched couple.
and even if she was married to the despicable Weiner
i have seen a lot of charming pictures of her. it’s rare that someone so pretty ends up in politics. well i think she’s pretty at least.
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/568bfec1396977000bddd88f/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/huma-abedin-hillarys-other-daughter-clinton.jpg
now as a brunette she has a look a little bit like tulsi gabbard. i think there was a time when Hillary liked her, too, before she developed a venomous hatred of tulsi.
Allan– I wondered the same thing. I think her family is Muslim Brotherhood and we know what fine fellows they are.
Young, you are absolutely right. Huma’s family are deeply involved. In 2016 the Republicans should have put in their platform that the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization. In the Holy Land Trial MB documents were produced showing that they wished to destroy the west. It’s funny how so few people have read that document.
Plato seemed to think there was a connection between a beautiful looking person’s body and their soul. I think Huma is beautiful, so I am allowing the possibility that inside her is a beautiful soul.
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6260.5-permanent-beauty-and-becoming-happy-in-plato-s-symposium-gabriel-richardson-lear
of course i am just speculating.
” I think Huma is beautiful, so I am allowing the possibility that inside her is a beautiful soul.”
Kurtz, frequently when we disagree I think it is because you are using your other brain. 🙂
Margaret of Anjou was said to be beautiful. But an angry look from her could curdle the blood of valiant knights.
BTB knew what Young meant.
Even I do not think BTB is so clueless that he is unaware of the fact that Classified Clinton emails were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop when he was caught sending Dick Pic’s.
Again ALL the disasters of the Clinton Campaign were “Own Goals”.
Weiner was NOT a GOP operative.
The DNC did not need to plot against Sanders and engage nepotistically with journalists, Clinton did not need to remove government documents – many of them classified from govenrment systems.
She created all of her own problems – and then expected Obama, Lynch and Comey to cover for her.
The parrot speaks. Repetition of talking points is the best a birdbrain can do.
I believe that Comey badly hurt Hillary but I am not at all convinced he was the main reason she lost. But that was not my point. My point was, Comey was accurate on what he said about her. She did what he accused her of.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
538 demomnstrates clearly – as did a chart produced here by John Say – that Comey cost Hillary between 1 and 4 points in the election and that was determinative. At the same time Comay and the entire FBI kept the Trump campaign investigation secret, an act of effective favoritism to Trump and against Hillary which determined the election.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
That’s your “Deep State”.
Aparently you can not read charts.
The polls on Oct 28 – BEFORE anyone knew of Comey’s letter were the LOWEST polling numbers for Clinton prior to the election.
her numbers went UP After people found out.
Re: “while protecting Trump from public knowledge of the investigation into his campaign,” that was appropriate, as the FBI norm (which was broken with Clinton) is not to announce investigations unless they result in charges (and I’ll note now that this is different from the DOJ as a whole, which might well announce an investigation prior to charges).
What was NOT appropriate was McConnell refusing to agree to make public that Russia was interfering in the election, attempting to help Trump.
And Russia is again interfering and trying to help Trump, and the Trump Admin. is doing nothing to stop it.
On Trump’s behalf, “Sen. Marsha Blackburn blocked a bill from Sen. Mark Warner that would require campaigns to report foreign offers of assistance to the FBI”: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2019/06/14/sen-marsha-blackburn-blocks-bill-requiring-campaigns-notify-fbi/1455094001/
Trump and his enablers are harming the country, and they don’t care.
A related article in yesterday’s NYT Magazine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200810122137/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/08/magazine/us-russia-intelligence.html
CTHD, as I note elsewhere, it was indeed FBI standards to not announce investigations just prior to elections. However, the Hillary letter in October was a violation of that standard, and if Comey was of the conspiratorial mindset most here have to believe or their world crumbles, he could have easily exposed the Trump investigation with the Hillary letter in the interests of fairness and the public’s right to know. Done deal and with very little extra blowback he did not receive anyway.
“CTHD, as I note elsewhere, it was indeed FBI standards to not announce investigations just prior to elections.”
False and irrelevant. Comey testidied to congress that the Clonton email investigation was closed. He did so not knowing that the NY AG was investigating Weiner.
When the NY AG turned over Weiner’s laptop because it contained Clinton Emails the FBI was obligated to reopen the investigation, and it was obligated to inform congress.
That is both a moral and legal obligation.
There are some serious issues – because apparently FBI had Weiner’s laptop for almost 2 months, and knew of it even longer, and mostly appears to have sat on the issue until suddenly in very late Sept taking interest.
There is a solid argument that Comey’s prior testimony was perjury. Regardless he was obligated to correct it.
“However, the Hillary letter in October was a violation of that standard”
Not a standard.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-indictment-that-made-bill-clinton-president/
“if Comey was of the conspiratorial mindset most here have to believe or their world crumbles,”
Comey was a deep state actor – his interest was his own personal power. That leans him towards the left – the bigger government the more power for Comey.
Is there some organized conspiracy ? Actually we now have a clear one in the Flynn setup.
Beyond that we have lots of people in govenrment acting alone or in concert to further their own personal interests.
This is self evident from the current evidence.
If you wish to call that a “conspiracy” – go ahead.
Regardless, it is what it is, Morally, ethically and often legally wrong.
“he could have easily exposed the Trump investigation with the Hillary letter in the interests of fairness”
There is no “fairness” standard. Regardless, why would he expose that he was illegally investigating Trump ?
He reported the investigation of Clinton because it conflicted with his prior testimony.
And also because there was a real crime involved. Not a bogus one.
We know that Clinton removed material she was not legally allowed to from secure government servers and sent it over the internet as well as making it accessible to hackers on the internet. We know that atleast one hostile foreign power got access to highly classied material – possibly on a real time basis.
This is not two years of investigation finding nothing. This is a short investigation finding a self evident crime and then trying to hide from it.
“the public’s right to know.”
This is not about the publics right to know.
John’s post is irrelevant.
By the way, whatever Comey was – and he was incredibly popular with his agents – John can thank his lucky stars he screwed Hillary while protecting Trump. He might also note that no FBI agents – including Strzock revealed the Trump investigation to voters.
if Bill hadnt have approached Lynch, the AG, she could have concluded the Hillary investigation
but he tried to improperly influence her. ergo, Bill’s fault, not Comey’s
that said, I still like Bill clinton more than his arrogant wife
“John’s post is irrelevant.”
Because you say so ?
non sequitur.
“By the way, whatever Comey was – and he was incredibly popular with his agents – John can thank his lucky stars he screwed Hillary while protecting Trump. He might also note that no FBI agents – including Strzock revealed the Trump investigation to voters.”
Do not give a crap whether Comey was popular with Agents – though a naked assertion is not proof.
I do care that Comey from long before this behaved as a law unto himself and made things up as he went along.
I do not care whether his misconduct benefited Trump and harmed Clinton, or the other way arround.
I care that he acted outside the law.
He did not have the authority to exonerate Clinton – even AG Horowitz took Comey to task on that.
The Clinton investigation should have started FAR earlier. Had he done his job correctly Clinton would not have been the democratic candidate, and maybe someone else would have won. I do not care.
Comey’s press release announcing that he was not prosecuting Clinton – which was NOT his call, was DAMNING to clinton – and that was even after it was purged of the most damning language.
Clinton needed to be prosecuted – as Comey just sent the message that further government officials can do the same things without consequence.
She also needed to be prosecuted to allow democrats to nominate a candidate that was NOT a lawless criminal.
Technically the FBI was obligated to keep the Clinton investigation secret too.
But that was impossible as Clinton’s misconduct was exposed by FOIA lawsuits, and eventually public testimony in the senate.
As too purportedly keeping the Trump investigation secret – that leaked out before the election.
Though probably not from the FBI. The Obama administration was doing a good job keeping Crossfire Huricane secret – because they knew it was WRONG.
Comey preemptively exonerated Hillary in July 2016 by stating that they could not prove intent, even though intent is not a part of the criminal statute for mishandling classified data. Then on September 26, 2016, Anthony Weiner, the husband of Hillary’s aide Huma, was arrested for sexting with a minor. His computer was seized and reportedly found to contain many/all of Hillary’s “missing” emails. The FBI only had a warrant to look for evidence of the sexting, so they set it aside and asked FBI HQ for a new warrant. The corrupt FBI/DOJ folks (Strzok, etc.) in DC sat on it for 6 weeks, until the local agent in NY started to make a stink about it, because he was worried that he’d be the fall guy if the cover-up was exposed, especially with the election approaching. Remember, this is now mid-October, 2016, right before the election. So, Comey is forced to pretend to open the investigation in late October, then a week later he again exonerates her. There’s no way to do a criminal investigation of 30,000+ emails in one week. It was all rigged.
So, Comey’s re-opening of the investigation of her emails may have cost her votes, but it’s their own damn fault that this was still an issue in the weeks leading up to the election. She stalled the investigation for many months, and then Comey let her off the hook in July.
Oh, and we still don’t know if the emails on Weiner’s computer were ever examined. The FBI and DOJ are corrupt to their core. Dismantle them and start over.
That’s wrong Bob. Intent has been required for prosecution under the spying act since a SC ruling in the early 1940s.
“In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court ….
Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” ……The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny,….
This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory…..”
John Ford is a former military prosecutor and a current reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He now practices law in California. You can follow him on twitter at @johndouglasford.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
By the Book,
Nice strawman you got there. No one accused her of spying, just purposefully mishandling classified information. Criminal intent is not required for prosecution of mishandling classified material. Every single email that she knowingly transferred from the classified server to her bathroom server was a potential crime.
“Criminal intent is not required for prosecution of mishandling classified material. Every single email that she knowingly transferred from the classified server to her bathroom server was a potential crime.”
No doubt you also want current and former members of the Trump Admin. investigated and possibly prosecuted for “mishandling classified material.”
https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/the-trump-administrations-questionable-email-practices
If you have evidence that Halley transmitted classified information on insecure system – demand an investigation.
The use of personal email for government business is a violation of the federal records keeping act NOT the espionage act.
Clinton’s emails were both. Violations of the FRA are not a crime.
Further, particularly within the whitehouse there is an enormous gray area between what is political and what is government.
Political communications are NOT covered by the FRA,
Regardless, mishandling hundreds of classified documents is criminal.
If you want to prosecute Trump administration people – go for it.
Name the statute Bob.
PS As noted by the author, the section at issue is 793(f) which is:”§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” under the section on Espionage. No one suggests another statute applies.
here is an interesting discussion of comparable cases
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/mishandling-classified-material-former-cia-agent-case-compares-clinton/
There are several other statutes that apply
The Federal Records Act was egregiously violated, but it is not a criminal statute.
It is relatively easily to assert that 18 US 793(e) was also violated.
18 US 793(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
“That’s wrong Bob. Intent has been required for prosecution under the spying act since a SC ruling in the early 1940s.”
False – we have been over this before, you are now engages in knowing misrepresentation.
I would strongly suggest that you READ the oppinion you cite before relying on some analysis that is not relevant and not followed.
“This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since,”
False, there has been a federal conviction of 18 USC 793(f) probably every single year since 1941 without intent.
You have been provided with specific examples.
I would further ask you “what is intent” ? In the very case you cited the Justices explicitly found that intent to harm the US or to deliver to a foreign power is NOT necescary.
Clinton INTENTIONALLY setup a bathroom mail server. She INTENTIONALLY conducted the business of the United States on it in defiance of other US laws. Clinton was repeatedly told that was a bad idea, that it was a security problem, and that it violated US records keeping laws. And yet she INTENTIONALLY continued to do so. Finally the majority of the classified information that she transmitted had to be INTENTIONALLY removed from a secure system in a SCIFF, and transfered to her bathroom mail server.
She KNEW or should have known that the information on the Secure system was at the very least classified – that is the entire purpose of the SCIFF and the secure system. It was not possible to electronically transfer this information. She could not put it onto a USB drive, or even photograph it with a cell phone. The information had to either be printed and snuck out of the SCIFF or handwritten and snuck out of the SCIFF. Put simple there is absolutely know way that her actions were not INTENTIONAL.
Criminal INTENT does not mean the INTENT to violate a specific law. It means an intentional act that you know or should know is wrong.
Only a moron thinks that removing information from a SCIFF is not WRONG. Anyone who has ever had a security clearance – and I had a Top Secret Clearance for several years, was drilled with the fact that you DO NOT remove anything from a SCIFF EVER. That if you do, you WILL lose your clearance, you WILL lose your job and you may lose your freedom.
“which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory…..”
This is complete BS. The cause you cite does NOT mean what you claim. People are conflicted of violating 18 USC 793(f) all the time.
Your ludicrously stupid argument would make it impossible to convict drunk drivers for manslaughter.
This is typical left wing BS warping the law into a pretzel to means often the opposite of what it is.
I would specifically note that 18 USC 793(f) is the GROSS NEGLIGENCE portion of the statute – and it is no different that lots of other state and federal laws that make grossly negligent acts into crimes. SCOTUS routinely affirms myriads of federal criminal convictions without even a claim of intention. This whole federal law requires INTENT claim is left wing nut BUNK.
Under Obama, while Clinton was Sec State, Senate republicans tried to add an INTENT requirement to all federal law that does not specify gross negligence and Senate democrats REFUSED.
I would firther note that 18 USC 793(e) is the version of the Espionage act that requires INTENT, and that Clinton EASILY meets the INTENT standard of section e.
So you are wrong about the law, you are wrong about Gorin. You are wrong about the general proposition that federal criminal law requires INTENT, You are wrong about Federal prosecutors, you are wrong about 18 USC 793(f) convictions. You are wrong in claiming Clinton did not have the requisite intent.
I am hard pressed to think of ANYTHING that you are right about.
Though all the legal cites you have provided are WRONG – even if the were not, you would still be WRONG.
Clinton did not act accidentally. She acted unarguably intentionally. She KNEW or should have known that her actions were illegal – violating SEVERAL federal laws. It is NOT POSSIBLE to accidentally transfer hundreds of classified documents from a SCIF to the internet.
Further though the federal records keeping laws are not criminal – Clinton was KNOWINGLY violating those. Knowing violation of one law is sufficient to prove intent with respect to another. This is centuries old law.
United States v. Rickie Roller
IG report on DCI John Deutch who was CONVICTED, and PARDONED by Bill Clinton for mishandling classified material.
https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html
Sandy Berger,
Though this is not one – there are MANY federal laws that SHOULD require intent but do not. I would welcome discussion of that.
I would note that by YOUR standards – the only things that Snowden and Manning did wrong was provide material to journalists.
Why do the rest of us have to listen to these kind of made up, stupid crappy arguments ?
Does anyone think that you would not be on the opposite side of this argument if it were someone within the Trump administration ?
And this is what is truly wrong – immoral, about you. EVERYTHING is determined by ideology for you. Clinton is not guilty of anything because she is closer to the left. Trump and his people are guilty because they are not. It is OK for the Obama administration to investigate Trump using obviously pure garbage as a basis for an investigation – but it is a crime for Trump to ask for an investigation of Biden using Biden’s own words and actions as the basis.
You have no standards at all.
John, good job. More people are now aware of the specifics. Btb will take a pause but in a discussion or two will repeat the same cr.ap he repeated here after being corrected multiple times on the same issue.
You hit the nail on the head. “And this is what is truly wrong – immoral, about you. EVERYTHING is determined by ideology for you.”
This is also the significance of the AOC statement.
Morality is a matter of principles. Morality does not exist without free will. Immorality is most violations of the free will of another.
But FACTS matter. You have not infringed on anothers liberty – because they say do.
To determine morality you MUST be precisely, factually, semantically correct.
All killings are not murder, All statements are not lies.
Everything that the majority of people beleive is not truth.
Everything that the majority of people wish to do is not moral.
Rumor has it that the NYPD made a mirror image of Weiner’s hard drive and it has some very bad stuff on it. No way of knowing this is true or not- not yet.
during the time you are talking about the nypd had just taken possession of anthony weiner’s laptop. it contained thousands of hilary clinton’s emails. i saw the nypd official on live tv threaten to go public with some of the information they found in her emails. comey swooped in less than two weeks before the election in order to get possession of the laptop and get control of the situation. note that he then promptly gave clinton a clean bill of health; “nothing to see here folks”. comey did not intervene to hurt hilary; he intervened to help hilary.
even if there is nothing unusually damning in hilary’s emails on weiner’s laptop, just the fact that her emails were on weiner’s laptop is bad enough.
the laptop was never returned to the nypd, and resides at the office of the u.s. attorney for southern n.y., who up until a month ago was a hilary apologist named berman. trump/barr suddenly replaced berman with clayton in june, effective early july. we’ll have to see what happens, but i have a hard time believing barr would be a part of anthing that would hurt his precious deep state. but we’ll have to see what happens.
Nice try Bill, but that’s false. The US Attorney, and therefore the FBI, had the Weiner case, not the NYPD.
Also Berman was a campaign contributor to Trump and a Trump appointee, not a Hillary supporter. The USA when the Weiner event happened was Phreet Baharra (sp?), who was an Obama appointee.
“Also Berman was a campaign contributor to Trump”
Show us proof that he donated to Trump. You don’t read very well so I want to verify what you are saying.
Sorry BTB the initial case was an NYPD case.
I can not find anything definiative on who got the laptop FIRST, Though there are ALOT of stories from myriads of news sources stating that NYPD had the laptop shortly after the story broke.
Absolutely the FBI ended up with it – and fairly quickly.
But there was definitely an NYPD case against Weiner.
Further Berman was NOT appointed by Trump. He was interviewed by Trump but NOT nominated. He was one of 16 Sessions acting US attorney;s His “acting” status was made indefinite by the courts.
All this is available on Wikipedia. “The Trump administration never nominated Berman “
“Further Berman was NOT appointed by Trump. He was interviewed by Trump but NOT nominated. ”
BTB makes things up all the time. Elsewhere he also said: “Also Berman was a campaign contributor to Trump” which is untrue. A lot of this stems from his innate inability to deal with facts. He takes facts and alters them to meet his talking points. Berman may have given to the GOP but that is not the same as giving to the Trump campaign. I am sure the Bush’s gave money to the GOP but definitely without any intent that Trump should benefit. Maybe Berman gave to both the GOP and DNC. What does that make him? A businessman.
Money to Candidates BERMAN, GEOFFREY S MR
PRINCETON, NJ 08540 07-28-2016 $5,400 Trump, Donald (R)
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Geoffrey+Berman&page=2
Geoffrey Steven Berman (born September 12, 1959) is an American attorney who served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2018 to 2020.
Berman is a resident of New York, where he previously lived from 1984 to 2002. He then moved to Princeton, New Jersey, where he lived for 14 years. Berman was a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, as was Rudy Giuliani.[20] It was reported that Giuliani supported Berman for U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, but that Giuliani supported a different candidate for U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[21][22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Berman
Sorry, BTB, didn’t see your 9:48 comment until after I’d posted my 9:53 response and reloaded the page.
CTDHD
Open Secrets reports two donations of -2700 and one of 5400.
I have no idea what open secrets means by a negative contribution.
But given a list of both negative and positive contributions totaling ZERO,
I would not accept this as incontrovertible proof.
Before you can accuse someone of lying – you need to do better than this.
The burden of proof for a moral accusation is HIGH and it falls on the accuser.
BTB, it appears you are correct so I appologize for my error. I see there are two Geoffrey Bermans and one of them appears to be who you said he was.
That places doubt as to the credibility of the party that provided me with the wrong information. I was informed that he donated to the Republican Party not to Trump. That is obviously wrong.
No problem Allan. We all make mistakes.
Yes, btb and I make sure to correct mine as soon as a mistake is noted. Alternatively I might explain why more than one answer is possible but I don’t let lies lay without correction and I try to remember my errors so I don’t repeat them again.
Not talking about anyone else. Just stating how I feel errors of this type should be handled.
I had no idea whether Berman contributed to Trump.
It would not surprise me that he did.
Many people contribute to all candidates.
Regardless, I generally assume that those on the left never bothered to check the accuracy of what they say.
By the Book, you’re right about Berman having made campaign contributions to Trump: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Geoffrey+Berman&page=2 (Don’t hold your breath waiting for Allan to admit that his claim “‘Also Berman was a campaign contributor to Trump’ which is untrue” is false.)
Technically, Berman wasn’t appointed by Trump, though he was appointed while Trump is President. Berman was named by Jeff Sessions as an interim US Attorney (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-appoints-17-current-and-former-federal-prosecutors-interim-united ) and then when Trump couldn’t be bothered to nominate a permanent US-A (just like he couldn’t be bothered to nominate people for lots of other positions, and in some cases actively avoided nominating people / actively avoided the Senate confirmation process), the judges of the Southern District Court of NY appointed Berman to be US-A. That’s why Barr couldn’t himself fire Berman, as Berman was appointed by the SDNY court.
Yes, so now the conspiracy these idiots have convinced themselves is the scandal of the century includes not only Republicans, Republicans Trump has personally appointed, but Trump donors. Guarantee by 2024, you won’t be able to find Republicans who will admit voting for this a..hole. You can’t any now who will admit voting for W or supporting the Iraq war. We know they almost all did. Of course Trump will show them the same loyalty he’s famous for – see the now exited 1st half appointees he now tries to publicly humiliate. He’s a slime ball of the 1st order. How do these idiots think this will end?
“Guarantee by 2024, you won’t be able to find Republicans who will admit voting for this a..hole.”
Something similar was said about Reagan. That should tell you something.
” who will admit voting for this a..hole. You can’t any now who will admit voting for W or supporting the Iraq war. ”
I voted for Bush. He was a disappointment.
Iraq war. I “voted” against the war until Hillary Clinton weighed in supporting that militant posture against Iraq but my opinion was pushed only minimally over to the go to war side. Knowing what I know now I would have stuck to my vote against the war but having the sitting President believing what he did and Clinton from the opposing party and the former President’s wife convinced me that I should alter my opinion.
I freely admit these things which makes your comment wrong.
I voted for Pat Buchanan who was on ballot first time W ran.
Second time, I did not vote for W, nor did I vote for his opponent. I opposed the war in Iraq.
I also did not vote for McCain nor Romney. I did not vote for Obama,
I wanted to register my discontent with the Republican candidates but still did not vote for Obama.
I had been very dissatisfied with many aspects of the Repubican party at the federal level
At the state level I often split my ballot, at times, because of my own cynical cronyism.
I have often been pleased to cast a vote for a Democrat personally known to me when they run
Indeed I have done so on many occasions. I have made donations too, in some cases, handsome ones
at state and local level in this area of flyover, a lot of the Democrats are conservative and good public servants.
I would not know if I am typical or not. I am not well liked by Republican stuffed shirts.
They seem to be afraid of my radical opinions in ways that, strangely, Democrats are not
Here’s why I like to denounce the Democrat leadership of Pelosi and Shumer, but I have a soft spot for local Democrats, often “very fine people”
I voted for Trump and I will again.
For all his many obvious faults, he has delivered on fair trade over free trade, and kept the US out of new wars.
and the wall, yeeehaaaaaaaaaaa
This time I will vote more uniformly for Republicans in order to affirm Trump’s leadership
I expect I have at least one Dem crony on the ballot who will get a vote however.
Hail to America and our great system of republican democratic government and elections!
I would note that the majority of democrats supported the Iraq war.
I did not.
I do not know many people who admit to voting for Obama today either.
“…but I believe there was also willful blindness among some Republican legislators.”
I would go much further than that. *Many* Republican legislators have protected the coup plotters/deep state. Republicans control the Senate and they’ve known of all the malfeasance all the way through.
Yeah, it’s all a plot Ivan and you and Trump have it figured out.
The Deep State got Trump elected with Comey’s October letter about Hillary while protecting Trump from a similar revelation about the investigation into his campaign. Why should the voters have not known that if they had to know about.what turned out to be nothing on Hillary?
The Russia Hoax is blatantly obvious, the criminality involved profound, and the evidence abundant. It is the biggest scandal in American history by far. And there’s a lot of people beyond Trump and myself who clearly see it. Turley is slowly waking up to this reality just as he’s doing on other issues to the consternation of you and your ilk. What matters to me are Turley’s posts…our comments are insignificant.
The “Russian Hoax” is no more a “hoax” than the “Coronavirus Hoax”. Do you recall that Trump said COVID-19 was a “hoax” being used by Democrats to bring him down? Well, now we have 5 million people infected, the largest number in the world. The only “hoax” is the fat slob who cheated his way into our White House and has tried to cheat again to stay there by leveraging aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginned-up accusations against Joe Biden. Russians did interfere with our elections. Flynn DID lie to the FBI about meeting with Russians and admitted it, twice, under oath. Russians ARE paying bounties to kill American service men and women, and Trump refuses to even discuss it, much less assure the American people that this will not be tolerated. He said that was a “hoax”, too. He also publicly deferred to Putin over American intelligence in Helsinki, and Flynn did reassure Russia that the sanctions put in place by Obama would not be permanent. How sophisticated do you need to be to see a pattern here?
Did you ever wonder how or why someone with a pattern of repeated business bankruptcies keeps getting loans and who is really backing them (not Deutsche Bank, which is accountable to its shareholders and the federal government), since no US bank will touch the Trump Companies? Well, the N.Y. A.G. wonders the same thing. Who is financing Trump, and is he refusing to show his financials to prevent us from finding out, not just who he is in bed with, or that he really isn’t as wealthy as he claims?
Why doesn’t Turley address the pathetic vainglory show Trump put on, signing “Executive Orders” for things he has no authority to do, like extending unemployment benefits, cancelling the payroll taxes (which fund Social Security and Medicare; plus, people who are still employed don’t need the extra money, and there hasn’t been any push for this from the public, but fat boy needs to appear magnanimous), and placing a moratorium on evictions? If a POTUS could just sign an “Executive Order” to lay or forgive taxes and the rest, why do we need a Congress at all? Trump’s little vainglory show, complete with cheering deplorables who jeered media and applauded his attacks against them was so sad. The narcissist has to have his attention and adulation, cheering while his lists his grievances. If he really wanted to solve problems for the unemployed, why not use what he believes are his superior negotiating skills to bring together Democrats and Republicans like other Presidents have done? Wait….I think I know why. There wouldn’t be cameras around. Plus, this way, he gets to blame Democrats for the stalemate. Democrats have reduced their demands, and Republicans refuse to budge. I think Republicans have been uncooperative by design, so that Trump can put on his little vainglory show for voters. It is nauseating. Fortunately, it is not working.
The “Russian Hoax” is no more a “hoax” than the “Coronavirus Hoax”.
The collusion delusion has been debunked from end to end.
It is less than 50% likely that the DNC emails got to Wikileaks via a russian hack – according to CrowdStrike – the DNC cyber investigator.
There are many aspects of C19 that either are or appear to be a hoax. But it is not near the hoax that Collusion Delusion was.
The virus itself is obviously real. It is obviously worse than the flu OVERALL – it is less of a threat than the flu for those under 40.
IT has OBVIOUSLY been overblown by the media. C19 is a once every 50 years event. It is not even close to the 1918 flu.
It is comparable tot he 1967 Flu.
That did not stop the vietnam war, protests, or woodstock. It was barely noted by the media. Yet it had more deaths per million than C19.
So yes there are aspects of C19 that are a Hoax, and Yes, the left is deliberately amplifying them.
Further it is likely there will be more C19 Hoxes come to light with time.
Sweden is doing fine – better than most of europe.
The US is doing about the same as the EU as a whole – better than half the countries worse than others.
Better than the UK, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France and Germany combined – that is about the same number of people as the US.
It is increasingly clear that absolutely nothing any government has done to thwart C19 has done anything besides delay the inevitable.
Though there are a few things that have made things worse – like sending recovering patients into nursing homes.
Democrats would be very wise to admit that C19 does not respond to lockdowns etc – otherwise they must explain why blue states have on average had 5 times the deaths per million of red states.
“Do you recall that Trump said COVID-19 was a “hoax” being used by Democrats to bring him down?”
No, nor do I care. I do not hang on every word Trump says. I do not micro parse them looking for something to foam and froth over.
I care what government DOES.
“Well, now we have 5 million people infected, the largest number in the world.”
That would be false – it is likely we have 10-20 times that number of infections.
It is likely most countries in the world have under counted infections as much or more.
Regardless, the Flu often infects 60M americans. 2009 H1N1 officially infected over 60M people – and probably infected many more.
“The only “hoax” is the fat slob who cheated his way into our White House and has tried to cheat again to stay there by leveraging aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginned-up accusations against Joe Biden”
Trump was elected the same way every president since Washington was.
The claims regarding Russia are a HOAX.
You really want to talk about leveraging Ukraine ? Only someone on the left with no shame could impeach Trump for trying to investigate Biden for blackmailing the Ukraine to protect his son.
“Russians did interfere with our elections.”
As they have every year since forever, and in absolutely no consequential way.
The probably did not get the DNC emails to wikileaks, regardless, the best way for democrats to avoid having their malfeasance exposed in public is not to engage in malfeasance. The emails showed democrats as the dishonest pols that they are.
“Flynn DID lie to the FBI about meeting with Russians and admitted it, twice, under oath.”
Are you clueless – that allegation is crap. It is not what he was charged with. Atleast you should get your misrepresentations consistent with the rest of your party.
“Russians ARE paying bounties to kill American service men and women,”
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. US deaths are way down so, it is not working.
“and Trump refuses to even discuss it, much less assure the American people that this will not be tolerated.”
He said it would not be tolerated.
regardless, what do you want him to do ? Nuke russia over bad intelligence ?
You do remember Bush invading Iraq because the CIA told him Sadam was making Nukes ?
Do you remember Obama bombing Syria because of fake claims of chemical weapons ?
Do you really want to list all the times US intelligence has been totally wrong ?
What do you want to do about this ? Are you prepared to nuke Russia over it ?
“He said that was a “hoax”, too.”
You make so many misrepresentations – how can one beleive you ?
And how do you know the story is true ?
“He also publicly deferred to Putin over American intelligence in Helsinki,”
Whatever that means ? Perhaps you can explain in simple sentences with verifiable facts.
Regardless, is there some reason we should Trust US intelligence ?
Did they get 9/11 right ?
What have they gotten right ?
“Flynn did reassure Russia that the sanctions put in place by Obama would not be permanent.”
False and irrelevant.
Obviously no sanctions ever will be permanent. But that is not what Flynn said.
He asked Russia to NOT escalate, so that it would be possible work together on real problems – like the mideast, during the Trump administration.
He did what Susan Rice should have. Regardless the transcript is available – Read it. Flynn’s call with Kislyak actually is “perfect”.
We need more people like Flynn.
“How sophisticated do you need to be to see a pattern here?”
The pattern is obvious – you are clueless.
“Did you ever wonder how or why someone with a pattern of repeated business bankruptcies keeps getting loans and who is really backing them (not Deutsche Bank, which is accountable to its shareholders and the federal government), since no US bank will touch the Trump Companies? ”
No I do not wonder that – it is none of my business. Duethche Bank is one of the most conservative lenders in the world.
Has Trump defaulted on them ?
If not, then they made a wise choice.
“Well, the N.Y. A.G. wonders the same thing.”
And yet we have a 4th amendment that says it is none of her business.
And actual liberals one railed at violating it.
“Who is financing Trump”
Why do you presume anyone is ?
Why is it your business ?
“and is he refusing to show his financials to prevent us from finding out,”
The 4th amendment says – your not entitled to know.
The requirements to be president are listed in the constitution – sharing tax returns with you is not metnioned.
“not just who he is in bed with, or that he really isn’t as wealthy as he claims?”
Who cares ? Again why is this your business ? with the possible exception of John Adam’s he is by far the wealthiest man to become president.
“Why doesn’t Turley address the pathetic vainglory show Trump put on, signing “Executive Orders” for things he has no authority to do”
If you beleive that – challenge them in court.
“like extending unemployment benefits”
Done using already allocated money – so likely inside his powers.
But if you disagree – take it to court. That is what courts are for.
“cancelling the payroll taxes”
False, he defered them. The hope is that congress will make that deferal into a cancellation. But he did not cancel them.
“(which fund Social Security and Medicare;”
False, The courts have ruled on this many many times. All taxes go into the general fund. SS and Medicare are paid out of the general fund. There is no connection between SS taxes and SS payments.
“plus, people who are still employed don’t need the extra money,”
So the one form of stimulus that democrats have ALWAYS in the past agreed with they now oppose because “orange man bad” ?
“and there hasn’t been any push for this from the public”
Because you say so ?
“but fat boy needs to appear magnanimous)”
Yes, Trump and Pelosi are in a pissing contest over who can appear to “care” more – guess what ? Trump won.
It is a stupid game – but it is YOUR game, and you lots.
“and placing a moratorium on evictions?”
I am a landlord. I do not like that. but Trump’s EO does not matter – because my government has banned evictions, so Trumps EO is redundant.
“If a POTUS could just sign an “Executive Order” to lay or forgive taxes and the rest, why do we need a Congress at all?”
Good question.
Regardless we have courts to sort this out.
“Trump’s little vainglory show”
Out did that of democrats and the left and that is what has pissed you off.
“complete with cheering deplorables who jeered media and applauded his attacks against them was so sad.”
Most americans “jeer” the media.
And yes, lots of people have taken YOUR insult as a badge of honor – proud deplorables.
Being deplored by you is a form of Republican virtue signalling. You should know something about that.
“The narcissist has to have his attention and adulation, cheering while his lists his grievances.”
Sounds like every politician ever.
“If he really wanted to solve problems for the unemployed, why not use what he believes are his superior negotiating skills to bring together Democrats and Republicans like other Presidents have done?”
Like Obama ?
Regardless, he HAS, that is precisely what this is. Whenever you make the price of your cooperation too high, you can expect your opponent to go it alone.
“Wait….I think I know why. There wouldn’t be cameras around.”
Again sounds like every politician ever.
Yes, I think Trump is enjoying being President. I think he enjoys baiting you and the media and the left.
And I think that pisses you off.
“Plus, this way, he gets to blame Democrats for the stalemate.”
Of course he does – Pelosi blew it. She overplayed her hand.
“Democrats have reduced their demands, and Republicans refuse to budge.”
So ? And they need to ?
Compromise is a tool, not a virtue. It is a means to an end. If republicans or democrats do not need to compromise they should not.
Regardless, Democrats radically overplayed their hand.
“I think Republicans have been uncooperative by design”
That is correct – republicans are ideologically opposed to most of the crap that democrats want.
“so that Trump can put on his little vainglory show for voters. It is nauseating.”
Pelosi Trump – the same. Trump just won this round – and several before.
“Fortunately, it is not working.”
Seems to be.
Ivan, I get your need to believe that the Toad-in-Chief is a victim of everyone else in government, including the guy and agency who protected him from the same revelation which crippled Hillary – none of the FBI agents, including McCabe and Strzock blew his cover on the investigation either – but you’re being played by an obvious, sleazy. and not very subtle con man who gives not a f..k for you or America if you get inj his way.. Wake up.
This is not about victimization – that is a fixation of the left.
It is about cleaning house.
BTB the Comey letter garbage has been repeatedly debunked – the timing does not work
On Oct 28, according to RCP clinton was at 44.9. That was a low point of a prior decline.
From Oct 28 through the election Clinton’s polling did not drop below what it was immediately BEFORE the letter was leaked.
Regardless, for all my disgust with Comey, Hillary Clinton chose the basement bathroom email server. She chose to Trust Huma Abedin, who chose to trust Anthony Weiner, who sent dick picks to teens, and got caught in an NY AG election that turned up something like 700,000 Clinton emails (mostly duplicates – many backups of the same thing).
Comey had told congress the investigation was closed. But as a result of the evidence from NY AG Comey was forced to reopen.
About the only moral thing comey has ever done was notify congress.
John linked a graph in support of this same argument yesterday.. Unfortunately for him and the country, it showed Hillary lost 2 points between the letter and election day. She actually lost more but it started rebounding, but not enough, soon enough.
Also 538 says John is wrong.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Any damn fool can see announcing a candidate is being investigated by the FBI 2 weeks before the election is going to hurt them badly. Given Trump was also under FBI investigation, the supposed head of the great Deep State conspiracy actually saved his a.s.
“John linked a graph in support of this same argument yesterday..”
And you can not read a graph.
“Unfortunately for him and the country, it showed Hillary lost 2 points between the letter and election day”. She actually lost more but it started rebounding, but not enough, soon enough.”
Again you can not read a graph.
“Also 538 says John is wrong.”
And of course 538 is right and the polls are wrong.
“Any damn fool can see announcing a candidate is being investigated by the FBI 2 weeks before the election is going to hurt them badly.”
Not if people already have decided they can not trust clinton. AS noted any damage to Clinton occured when the story broke that Clinton’s laptop had hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails on it – some classified.
The fact that the FBI did what they were required to – investigate should surprise no one.
“Given Trump was also under FBI investigation, the supposed head of the great Deep State conspiracy actually saved his a.s.”
Nope, for once he followed the law.
Regardless, he was hiding the investigation because he knew it was going to get in him deep shit.
Thank you Ivan for stating the position clearly.
I will intentionally be a bit unclear. One person is now making a big fuss. When Trump was first elected his attitude was otherwise and when doing his job didn’t do a good one in this area though he had more than the ability to do so.
I agree 100% with your criticism of Trump. He has let his supporters(and the country) down by not using his given powers to reveal the attempted coup. The swamp is winning and the game ends if Trump loses in November.
I find amazing the extent to which you true-red Trumpsters buy the Kellyanne spin that when he gets caught lying or talking out of his large ass about things he knows nothing of, you are willing to believe he’s just baiting those who oppose him (which is most Americans). There is no method to his madness. He shoots off his mouth or lies, gets shot down and then says it was all just a joke to see if his opponents fall for it. The only “coup” here is the failed businessman game show host, beholden to Russia, who keeps pretending he’s validly entitled to the title of “President”.
Russia is winning here: they are causing chaos in this country by hacking into databases, spreading false information, all of which is engineered to help their fat candidate win, but more importantly, they got their fat puppet to withdraw troops from Germany. Fortunately, he hasn’t been able to force the G-7 to let Russia back in. The rest of the world can’t believe he’s getting away with all of this. Then, there’s the out-of-control pandemic, with new daily records being set, but no cohesive or coherent federal policy to assure the safety of school children and adults who work in schools. Doctors who attempt to tell the truth are sidelined. It feels like we’re in another universe.
word salad from Natch. sprawling, rambling, incoherent logo-rhea
“I find amazing the extent to which you true-red Trumpsters buy the Kellyanne spin that when he gets caught lying or talking out of his large ass about things he knows nothing of, you are willing to believe he’s just baiting those who oppose him (which is most Americans). There is no method to his madness. He shoots off his mouth or lies, gets shot down and then says it was all just a joke to see if his opponents fall for it. The only “coup” here is the failed businessman game show host, beholden to Russia, who keeps pretending he’s validly entitled to the title of “President”.”
Most americans have no interest in the journalists and lefts “gotcha” games.
The left has effectively destroyed language. The consequence of which is to the extent it ever did, what people say does not matter much.
It is what they do that matters.
We do not need the media or the left to tell us what Trump has done.
“Russia is winning here: they are causing chaos in this country by hacking into databases, spreading false information, all of which is engineered to help their fat candidate win, but more importantly, they got their fat puppet to withdraw troops from Germany. Fortunately, he hasn’t been able to force the G-7 to let Russia back in. The rest of the world can’t believe he’s getting away with all of this.”
Leftist spin and naratives. Russia is disempowered. Whether you like it or not, Trump’s energy policy has dramatic geopolitical ramifications. It radically tilts the balance of power in favor of Europe at the expense of Russia and the mideast.
Europe no longer has to compete with the US for energy from the mideast and Russia. Both of which are now pitted against each other as competitors. Trump has further backstopped the EU with a guarantee of meeting their energy needs with US gas.
That makes it far easier for the EU to negotiate with the mid east and russian and eliminates the possibility of blackmail.
Yes US forces are leaving europe – in return for Trump’s energy guaraantee’s Europeans are taking over responsibility for their own defense. They are also becoming a greater threat to Russian adventurism.
The US has no ability to militarily intervene against Russia unless they directly attack Europe. The Europeans will never give permission for US forces to travel accross Europe to fight Russians or to defend Russian targets. But absent US forces in Europe it is increasingly in Europe’s interest to contain Russia.
So contra your claims in numerous ways Russia is WEAKER
The Russian economy has been in recession for years. It is down 25% from 2014.
“Then, there’s the out-of-control pandemic, with new daily records being set, but no cohesive or coherent federal policy to assure the safety of school children and adults who work in schools. Doctors who attempt to tell the truth are sidelined. It feels like we’re in another universe.”
C19 DOES NOT CARE about your policies.
School children are 5 times safer from C19 than from the seasonal Flu.
The only experts getting “sidelined” are those providing the facts rather than selling leftist pandemic panic porn.
We are in another universe – the dystopian one of YOUR making. Where facts do not matter.
“they got their fat puppet to withdraw troops from Germany.” …Another Russia rant.
Natacha, you are oblivious to what is happening in the world. Why does one of the richest countries in the world require the US to maintain troops on its soil 3/4 of a century after WW2. Russia is in a decline and has been threatening nations other than Germany. Almost 1/2 of those troops will be restationed in eastern Europe closer to Russia. Do you think that Germany is unable to recruit Germans to make up for the number that are leaving?
Let’s hear your answers only on Germany and the 12,000 troops being removed. Demonstrate that you have some understanding of what is happening other than what we already know, you hate Trump so whatever he does to you must be wrong even if what he does strengthens the US.
Pulling US troops from Germany is against our national interest as well as the interests of our fellow democratic allies in Europe, and any US military policy maker will confirm that. It is exactly what Putin wants however and he can count on his asset Trump to continue to deliver for him, no matter what, which is why he is once again our Manchurian candidate.
“Pulling US troops from Germany is against our national interest”
Explain why it is against ***America’s*** interest.
Because the Fulda Gap requires a hefty troop presence to dissuade the Russians from moving directly into Berlin. in the mid 80’s it was the single most wargamed part of the world at the tail end of the Cold War and chances were 50/50 the U.S. and Russian would go to war over Germany and the industrial resources therein. It caused a fair amount of nuclear drama.
Trump *should’ve* learned a lesson from backing out support of the Kurds in Syria and watching the Turks (and the Russians) gain traction there and take a lot of territory not previously under their sway.
Trump’s a sucker for the dictatorial strong men who play him like a fiddle. Germany would be the brass ring for Putin.
” in the mid 80’s ”
We are in the 2020’s.
Today Germany is an economic power and has a sufficient population to provide troops if those 12,000 are needed.
Other countries as we have learned with the Ukraine and Crimea experience under Obama don’t have such ability and that is where almost half of those troops are going.
To bolster your position you bring in Syria which is unrelated and a place where Trump’s actions worked out well. Those troops that were moved, some to bolster the defense of the oil wells did not significantly impact Russias hold on Syria. The numbers were very small.
Your position was to place our troops against Turkey’s troops. Turkey’s army is one of the largest in the world and the position was home advantage. However, those that thought like you then made dire predictions of what would happen. Those positions were never realized. They were wrong.
Now you can get back to the subject in the year 2020: “Explain why it is against ***America’s*** interest.”
On 2016 Trump made two calculated decisions.
He made a play for Blue collar workers, and he turned his back on Neo-Con’s.
Both these moves made him a more appealing candidate to moderate democrats.
These completely restructured US politics. Democrats should be extremely desparate right now. Because If Trump wins.
What are they going to do in 2024 when the GOP runs a candidate with Trump’s policies but is less volatile.
We heard years of demographics is destiny and a permanent democratic majority,
and yet democrats face the strong possibility of being irrelevant soon.
Nothing in politics is permanent. Democrats WILL have to eventually change strategy. They should have post 2016.
There wins in 2018 suggested a democratic shift back to the center.
But their actual governing has been insane.
See what the military thinks of you and man who wears a cow flop on his head’s position. Today. Not in the 80’s.
Disingenuous of you to try to discount my explanation to your question because I provided the context required to answer the question.
The example of Syria wasn’t brought up to try to “bolster” my position either, it was used as context and comparison as well. In a room full of trump devotee’s your take may make sense, but amongst military strategists
it’s an outlier position.
“Disingenuous of you to try to discount my explanation to your question”
Your answer involved strategic planning in the 1980’s. Yes, I discount that. I understand George Washington had a comment on foreign wars as did Monroe and many others. Should we check in on these fellows to tell us whether or not there is a strategic necessity for these 12,000 men today?
Most importantly you won’t provide the answer to why Germany can’t supply the 12,000 men or why those men aren’t more strategically important in the areas that half were sent to. These are simple questions so you hide behind “big names ” hoping the names alone are sufficient. Your appeals to authority are well noted here and elsewhere don’t work. That is BS unless there is an argument behind the name that is better than why can’t Germany make up the 12,000 men.
As far as Syria is concerned tell me about these experts and what wars they won that didn’t leave us in deeper trouble than we were aleady in. The record is more dismal than bright.
“See what the military thinks of you and man who wears a cow flop on his head’s position”
Yes actually read Mattis’s book, or anything by Bolton. These are honest men, holding honest views of the US role in the world.
But see if after reading them that is the US strategy you want ?
I suspect not. These people are advocating a continuation of the military policy of the Obama Bush years.
They do not think that Iraq, and Afghanistan were failures. They think the US should be prepared to deploy troops to hotspots arround the world for decades is necescary.
Is that what you want ?
That is not what most voters want.
Too many on the left laugh about the “deep state” – failing to grasp these are the same people who got us into Iraq, and left us in Afghanistan forever, who made a mess of libya and syria.
So let me be clear:
Russia is very near a failed state. They are not the military threat they were 40 years ago. Nor 20 years ago, nor even 10.
Today – not the 80’s.
Our concern about Russia is their Nukes – that is it.
AS to the mideast – so long as the US is an energy producing nation – the Mideast is inconsequential.
Not just because the US does not need mideast oil – but because the global competion for mideast oil is diminished.
You fail to grasp how significant Trump’s energy policy is. IT is not just good for the US, it is good for Europe, and good for much of the world and bad for Russia and the mideast.
BTW there are plenty of experts that have been pushing for a China facing foreign policy for decades – it was ulitmately inevitable.
Much of that “deep state” is cold warriors or their alcolytes hanging on to power on the Russia desks or Mideast desks who do not hate Trump – they hate ANYONE would will shit US foreign policy from Russia and the mideast.
There is a reason that Obama failed to keep his promises regarding getting out of the mideast.
He was too weak to take on the “deep state” instead he gave them what they wanted and tried to use them.
And I was explaining why it fit America’s interest. Essentially, what you’re saying is that the accepted alliance of NATO is not worthwhile. That there are no benefits from having European partners.
America is always in a better position by its teamwork with the Europeans…, it was beneficial in the Cold War. It’s beneficial in America’s middle eastern policy (although I’ve not been a fan of it). it’s beneficial for technological reasons, it’s beneficial for medical reasons, it’s proven to be the world’s strongest alliance since its inception in response to the forces culminating in the second world war.
And it’s not worth jettisoning because fat nixon can’t see past reading a spread sheet he doesn’t understand and is incapable of seeing the cumulative benefits of teamwork.
Your question is abstract and elementary. It’s the equivalent of asking something like: is it warm in the summer?
“Essentially, what you’re saying is that the accepted alliance of NATO is not worthwhile. That there are no benefits from having European partners.”
I said no such thing either way. You have fallen into the trap of accepting simple explanations that are so simple they are meaningless.
“America is always in a better position by its teamwork with the Europeans”
What you are really saying is America must give to Europe or they won’t cooperate with America. We were protecting Europe. They are the one’s wanting protection and have the ability to pay with money and manpower. Are you the one who in third grade who always gave his lunch to the other kid because you might be threatened?
“And I was explaining why it fit America’s interest”
But you didnt explain anything.
“Essentially, what you’re saying is that the accepted alliance of NATO is not worthwhile.”
Nope, only that today NATO need not require US troops in Europe.
The US will still defend Europe if it is attacked. But we are now expecting Europeans to form their own first line of defense.
“That there are no benefits from having European partners.”
Of course there are. But there is no need to have US troops in Europe.
Again Europe needs to manage its own first line of defense. If it can not manage that, it is not worth partnering with.
I would further note this will long term effect European policy. Europeans have become so dependent on US defense that the accuse us of Fascim while not able to defend themselves. When Europe has to think more about the fact that the world is not all butterfly’s and rainbows, they will be better partners.
“America is always in a better position by its teamwork with the Europeans…, ”
Actually no. The US has never been big on “teamwork”. The US leads by example. We have sucked when we tried to run our foreign policy in the same way as europe or the rest of the world.
I would BTW note that Trump has encircled China with enemies in a few short years. He has done this by working with Asian countries one at a time. With Tiawan, with Japan, with Vietnam, with India, With the Philipines.
Contra your claims the US is in a better global position than ever before. But again we are leading by example, not consensus.
It is important that other nations trust us – but not that they agree with us.
A Biden presidency and a return to KowTowing to China will be disasterous in Asia.
Much of Asia will have to move into China’s orbit if it can not trust the US,
Asia together can contain China – without alot of US help.
The same thing Trump was selling to Nato – “what you need, not what you want”.
But it is F’d if we return to the Obama policies of apeasement.
You keep claiming that Trump is a russian tool.
Trump has give Putin possibly his greatest insult – he has told Putin that he does not matter, that Europe needs nothing from the US to counter Russia beyond energy guarantees.
And Trump is right.
And you think Putin is going to work to elect Trump ?
Another pile of Schiff.
“It was beneficial in the Cold War”
The cold war is over for 30 years. The USSR does not exist and Russia is a shadow of what it was even 10 years ago.
“It’s beneficial in America’s middle eastern policy (although I’ve not been a fan of it).”
Nope.
US Mid east policy has been crap.
“it’s beneficial for technological reasons”
Nope,
“it’s beneficial for medical reasons”
Nope,
Europe is not as bad as Russia, but it too is slowly falling behind.
“it’s proven to be the world’s strongest alliance since its inception in response to the forces culminating in the second world war.”
NATO was formed AFTER the war.
The meaningful alliance was always between the US and UK – and you can expect that to strengthen as both of us gain more distance from the EU.
“And it’s not worth jettisoning because fat nixon”
Trump is not Nixon. The closest recent president to Nixon is Obama.
“can’t see past reading a spread sheet he doesn’t understand and is incapable of seeing the cumulative benefits of teamwork.”
The Changes that Trump has managed in US foreign policy over 4 years are incredible – I do not think any president ever has changed things so much.
And you are completely clueless as you see them as somehow bad.
The entire US foreign policy has reoriented where it actually matters.
To be clear, this has been coming long before Trump, but the status quo resistance from “deep staters” has been incredible.
Regardless, you are not seeing the world.
We are safer and better oriented for the future.
The mideast can go to hell. and it is Europe that will suffer – not the US.
WE need not jump into each mideast conflict.
Europe has been able to defend itself for some time.
Now it has been told it MUST.
Trump has backstopped their energy against Russian and mideast blackmail – the rest they are doing for themselves.
Russia is not coming through the Fulda Gap. It is not likely inside their ability to even attempt that today.
Russia is a paper tiger, a failing state.
We absolutely should be concerned about Russia’s nukes – but that is about it.
Because the Fulda Gap requires a hefty troop presence to dissuade the Russians from moving directly into Berlin.
Perhaps we should enlist our NATO allies to provide a troop presence in our American cities to dissuade the Marxist dissidents from their destruction. Oh, that’s right, we’re a sovereign nation and it would be against our national interests to have foreign troops occupying our territory. You a$$hats are not satisfied with creating a dependency culture within our own country, you are convinced we have to make countries dependent on us as well. Of course that patriarchy is just fine with you dolts.
Didn’t say what you’re attributing to me.
Let’s leave it at the fact you asked why it was against America’s strategic interest to pull troops from Germany and i told you the answer.
I provided context and comparisons of principle.
I even gave a reason making sure to point out I personally disagreed with the reason.
Bug, you are making a lot of statements that are directed to yourself and not in particular to Olly or myself without noting what you are actually answering.
The answers you do provide are referrals to non answers previously provided and answers that appear incorrrect.
You seem to think we are living in the 1980’s
You seem to think Germany is more threatened than other eastern European nations when there is proof you are wrong.
You seem to think Germany’s population is so small it can’t provide an additional 12,000 men
You seem to think Germany’s economy is unable to support NATO like it is supposed to.
You seem to think it is our job to keep Germany happy by having the American taxpayer supporting them.
Answer the simple questions and stop dancing like that third grader who keeps giving his sandwich away.
“Let’s leave it at the fact you asked why it was against America’s strategic interest to pull troops from Germany and i told you the answer.”
An answer that was meaningful in 1980- and meaningless today.
The Russians are not invading Europe. It is no longer inside their abilities.
“I provided context and comparisons of principle.”
Not really, you mouthed pablum.
You do know it is not the 1980’s ?
That the USSR no longer exists and that Russia probably can not manage to put together a working military group sufficient to defeat Poland much less Germany today ?
Russia is NOT the military power it once was – it is NOT even close.
“Trump *should’ve* learned a lesson from backing out support of the Kurds in Syria and watching the Turks (and the Russians) gain traction there and take a lot of territory not previously under their sway.”
Seems to have worked out fine to me. ISIS has been defeated and The Turks and Russians are wasting their forces fighting over sand.
Allan: you’re conflating military strategy with political opinion. Your original question, before switching to why the Germans can’t supply 12k more soldiers, was how removing American soldiers was against America’s interest. I answered the question you originally asked.
John: I take your question seriously, because it does seem to be a focused question. I said in my original answer to Allan (before he shifted into his standard Allan games) there are aspects of NATO policy, particularly around middle east policy, that I definitely don’t agree with. I agree with you that there are legit places to re-imagine NATO policy, certainly in a military sense….
To answer your question of whether that’s the military strategy I’d want…yes, in regard to the Fulda Gap, which is a strategic weakness for all of time due to its natural contours, I can’t say I disagree with it. It makes sense. It keeps an American foot print in Europe. It provides protection to an ally that was good to bring into the fold post WWII. It’s solid from a technological and medical standpoint to ally with Europe. It goes far beyond the question of dollars and cents when assessing the benefits of doing what it takes to band together with the Europeans.
Trump is only capable of seeing the partnership through the lens of finances. He’s limited in his approach and it leads him to make poor strategic decisions across the board.
Of course, my uncles all fought in WWII on everything from submarines to driving tanks, so I’m biased in that respect. Lots of sacrifice went into the need, and the execution, of NATO policy.
I
Bug – cooperation went into NATO policy, not sacrifice.
“Allan: you’re conflating military strategy with political opinion. “
Not at all, Bug. You are confused. By being President, Trump became a politician with his own political opinions. At the same time he is a civilian and the ultimate commander of our armed forces. There are many strategic positions that exist but the only one that actively counts is the strategic position of the President who is the commander and chief. There are good reasons for that but it is not my job to educate you though I think you might already be aware but for your ideological commitments.
You provided one of many strategies but you didn’t provide the reasons that strategy is better than any other. Nor did you supply any reason that Trump’s strategy was a worse one. You failed to produce a logical argument in favor of your position.
All you did was tell us the thinking of the 1980’s while you appealed to authority.
I await for you to tell me why Germany cannot provide those troops or money and why those troops could not be better used in countries closer to Russia where during the Obama administration Russia ate up a part of that area up.
An alliance is not good when some of the allies do nothing to support the alliance’s purpose. Trump’s actions in my opinion make NATO stronger not weaker for it pushes our allies to make themselves stronger and less reliant on us. If you are worried about Russian troops then Germany needs to be prepared and not totally dependent on the US. It is that preparation that would inhibit an enemy attack. Trump has already done his job by rebuilding our armed forces.
“Of course, my uncles all fought in WWII on everything from submarines to driving tanks, so I’m biased in that respect. Lots of sacrifice went into the need, and the execution, of NATO policy.”
That type of bias is a good thing but doesn’t mean that things must remain static. Germany looks out for itself. They want protection from the Russians but are willing to place themselves under the soft power of oil when the weather gets cold. We are willing to protect them from that as well.
I want a strong NATO where all the partners are willing to sacrifice and not one where the partners are dead weight.
In any event as John has told you Russia is not our problem. Look at their demographics and their economy. Both are faltering badly so we have to worry not about Russia but about their nuclear weapons and a potential partnership between Russia and China. China is the real threat to America.
Trump realized that long ago and that is why he has tried to induce Russia into a more friendly position with America. That was a possibility the day the Wall fell. We have muffed our foreign policy with regard to Russia. Most recently when Trump was trying to reverse prior errors Democrats for political gain destroyed that possibility. In his second term hopefully Trump will be able to manage China and at the same time improve our relationships with Russia.
“I said in my original answer to Allan (before he shifted into his standard Allan games) “
Bug, why don’t you define those games so we all know what they are. The reality is that your statement above is precisely what you claim others to do, game playing. Unfortunately for you your game is totally obvious, make unfounded statements that lead nowhere and take pressure off of your inability to defend a poorly thought out statement that you made.
Explain why it is against ***America’s*** interest.
Well duh, because President Trump is for it.
Keep this in mind; these idiots are all for having the federal government having a military presence in foreign countries that after 75 years, should be fully capable by now of defending their own sovereign territory. But they are opposed to having our federal government having a presence in any of our states that are proving they are not capable of defending the lives, liberty and property within their own territory. My guess is that Russia and China approve of their ignorance.
“Pulling US troops from Germany is against our national interest as well as the interests of our fellow democratic allies in Europe, and any US military policy maker will confirm that.”
Nope.
We are backstopping their energy needs, we are backstopping their national defense. But we are expecting that the FIRST line of their defense will be THEIRS.
Further a EU that is capable of defending itself is a very serious threat to russian military adventurism in the region.
US Troops are not. US Troops in Germany serve one purpose – a deterent to Russians invading Germany.
A stronger German defense is a much larger deterent to Russia.
BTW Trump is doing the same thing in Asia. Austrailia, India, Vietnam, South Korea, Tiawan, Japan and the Philipines are strenghting their own nations defense – with backstopping from the US
“It is exactly what Putin”
No, it is pretty much what Putin does not want.
“wants however and he can count on his asset Trump to continue to deliver for him”
Yup, Trump has made Putin more impotent than ever,
The russian military is rusting in place. To be clear – that started long before Trump. Regardless, they are increasingly a paper tiger.
They have one of the best main battle tanks in the world – all two of them. but they can not produce them, and no one wants to buy them.
They have one of the worlds best fighters – but each year fewer and fewer are combat capable and they have been unable to sell them to anyone else. They once had a navy second only to the US, now they are far behind, China, India, and probably Japan, They will likely fall behind the UK, France, and Taiwan soon.
The entire Russian GDP is barely that of the Pentagon. Russian GDP is less than 1/8 that of Europe.
There is absolutely no reason that Europe can not defend itself. Poland alone has 1/3 the GDP of Russia.
Germany alone has TWICE the GDP of Russia.
There are only two things that Russia has that are consequential.
1), the worlds largest stockpile of nukes.
2). Significant energy reserves.
When Trump was briefed by the FBI in 2016 he was told that Russia was a far greater threat than China.
Trump was surprised by that.
He was right to be surprised. The US IC assessments that continue to pretend that Russia is the biggest global threat are garbage.
Anyone who can grasp GDP knows better.
The US, EU and China are each about 1/4 of the world economy.
Russia is 1/50th.
Ivan, I was referring to Lindsay Graham.
I am disappointed as well but I don’t know that Trump could have done what you wanted. He has been balncing himself on a tiny floatable in a sea of sharks.
Conservative people need to understand.
This wasnt the Democrats..
This was the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, FISC, House Intelligence Committee, Senate Select Intelligence Committee, the RNC and DNC all working towards the same goal. Keep Trump from office, and once there, get him out by any means necessary.
Thats both parties. Understand that this couldnt happen without the willful participation of the Gang of 8. All of them, and there is only one that has been outspoken on this stuff and he has been roundly rejected. Devin Nunes.
War is when your government tells you who the enemy is.
Revolution is when The People figure it for themselves.
“This was the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, FISC, House Intelligence Committee, Senate Select Intelligence Committee, the RNC and DNC all working towards the same goal. Keep Trump from office, and once there, get him out by any means necessary.”
Zeiglar, that’s complete BS. The ring leader of your supposed conspiracy, at the head of the FBI, personally got Trump elected.
“the coup plotters”
You and others who likewise lie about there having been an attempted “coup” are like Ingsoc in 1984, twisting words’ meaning for your own political ends.
What do you call it when KNOWING that they have nothing, members of DOJ, FBI, CIA, IC, … all continue to seek to remove a duly elected president ?
What behavior do you think is illegitimate ?
You impeached Trump for seeking an investigation of Biden when there was more than reasonable suspicion to do so.
You have already defined what you think the standard for illegitimate is.
And Biden and Obama and their cohorts clearly went far beyond what you impeached Trump for.
“You impeached Trump for seeking an investigation of Biden when there was more than reasonable suspicion to do so.”
John, are you this lame? If there is a reasonable suspicion of Biden – name it please – you don’t pursue it by extorting the leader of another country by withholding congressionally approved funds in return for his public announcement of an investigation. The announcement was enough by the way, an actuall investigation not necessary.
By the way, these same Republicans, who for the 1st time ever refused witnesses during a Senate impeachment hearing impeached another president for lying about a blow job. Their main prosecutor in that, who later lost his job in shame from Baylor U for looking the other way while sexual abuse was going on, was hired on their staff for this one.
“John, are you this lame? If there is a reasonable suspicion of Biden – name it please”
I did – Biden’s own words in public. These are not the words of some 3rd level surogate like Papadoulis, nor are they words misreported – Both Downer and Papadoulis later confirmed that the conversation was NOT about the DNC emails – therefore no reasonable suspicion.
Horowitz confirmed that.
But subsequently we have ALOT to add to the Biden issue. We NOW have recordings of Biden and Kerry talkign to Porshenko – with Burisma explicityly mentioned. Biden has been indicted int he Ukraine.
We have myriads of emails between Hunter’s attorney’s and the state department.
We have communications between the State department and the VP’s office indicating there is a HUGE conflict of interest – goting all the way back to 2014.
There is not reasonable suspicion – there is the much higher legal standard – probable cause regarding Biden.
“you don’t pursue it by extorting the leader of another country by withholding congressionally approved funds”
Then why didn;’t you impeach Biden – he has ADMITTED that is what he has done.
The fact is you are wrong. The question is not “can the president (or vice president)” extort foreign countries.
It is WHEN can they do so.
They certainly can not do so for personal gain – or that of their relatives and family.
Biden has a LONG history of using political power to aide his family.
Conversely like it or not ANY president CAN act in ways that benefit them politically – that should be a no brainer.
That is essentially the definition of democracy – a president acting to give americans what they want.
Bolton ranted that everything Trump did was focused on re-election – and you tried to make that into a sin.
Trump is striving to keep his campaign promises. That is important to getting reelected.
One of those is “draining the swamp”.
Biden is the epitomy of “the swamp”
“in return for his public announcement of an investigation. The announcement was enough by the way, an actuall investigation not necessary.”
False and irrelevant. Read the transcript – Trump lists a whole lot of matters involving corruption and the Ukraine that he would like investigated – but Trump NEVER mentions announcing them. The congressional Testimony flat out states that when Trump was CONFRONTED by ambassador’s regarding what he wanted his answer was “I want Zelensky to do what is right”.
But lets assume that Trump asked for the announcement of an investigation. SO WHAT. An announcement is a public commitment to actually do what you announce. If I wanted to be sure someone did what the said they would ONE way to increase that is to have them publicly announce it.
“By the way, these same Republicans, who for the 1st time ever refused witnesses during a Senate impeachment hearing impeached another president for lying about a blow job.”
False – it is not common to have witnesses during an impeachment. The Senate never should have had a trial. They should have returned the impeachment to the House as not stating an impeachable offense.
Next Clinton was impeached for lying under oath TWICE, and for multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
“Their main prosecutor in that, who later lost his job in shame from Baylor U for looking the other way while sexual abuse was going on, was hired on their staff for this one.”
God forbid you should state something clearly. What has this got to do with anything ?
Starr prosecuted Clinton. He caught him lying under oath. Clinton surrendered his law license, and pair millions to Paula Jones.
He should have paid for what he did to many other women.
Starr had no involvement in what happened at Baylor. People with integrity often resign when bad things happen on their watch.
Trump’s defense team was stellar. With excellent people from left and right.
But there never should have been a trial.
I did see that Sen. Johnson wants to talk to Wray and he is to bring some documents that he has been sitting on.
So far when documents have been released in recent days one has to wonder why they couldn’t have been released day one. It seems that Washington folk no matter what party they belong to are mostly “company men”. Protect the company at all costs even if it involves helping one’s enemies.
Allan – Wray seems like a company man, trying to keep the peace and not expose his flank.
I think almost anyone who has made his life a part of Washington is likely a company man.
Today it is no longer who we should choose in 2020. We need Trump. He is an outsider and that is what all of Washington is afraid of.
government employees are overwhelmingly risk adverse. and people tend to protect “their own”.
so, it’s disappointing but that unexpected.
Given what we are seeing today – HOW was Mueller appointed ?
Rosenstein KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
What we are seeing OVER AND OVER is that the FBI knew they have a steaming pile of schiff – from the start. That it only got worse over time, that by early January they KNEW they had nothing.
And yet through gthe same perious of time there are bazillions of leaks to the press claiming otherwise, and not only was the media duped, but the house and senate were duped, and even Rosenstein at DOJ was duped into appointing a SC when the investigation had already died – because there was absolutely nothing their and they knew it.
After that – WHY did Mueller and his Inquisition put the country through hell, trying to prove what they already knew was crap ?
And why are there peoplke who still buy this flaming pile of schiff ?
They were not duped.
They were willfully blind. They all knew and purposefully turned a blind eye with one goal in mind. Get the guy out of office that isnt part of the Uniparty Elites club.
Zieglar, you’re blind. I just spelled out for you what a croc your conspiracy fantasy is and you cannot refute it in anyway that makes sense unless you are a true believer.
ROFL that you think the Republicans in Congress wanted Trump out of office, but almost to a person chose not to use the most straightforward way to do it: impeachment and removal. Do you have any idea how stupid your conspiracy theory sounds?
By the time the Senate Trial occured the illegal and immoral actions of the Obama administration were self evident.
You do not seem to grasp that our positions can changes as we learn more facts.
Maybe that is because you do not seem to be able to change your understanding of reality when the facts no longer support it.
CTDHD
Please rad the emails for the two weeks leading up to the Flynn interview.
There is zero doubt of a criminal conspiracy.
When the XFR investigation tanked – it was over on Jan 4. 2017, the participants in the whole Crossfire series of investigations realized they were going to have to tell Flynn about it all. That they could not continue to lie to him, that it would actually eb a federal crime to lie to the NSA about national security investigations if he was no longer a target.
This was discussed among the “conspirators”.
First they discussed how to tell Flynn – and it was self evident that was going to explode BADLY in their faces.
Then they ploted to figure out how to NOT Tell Flynn.
That required getting him fired or getting him prosecuted.
Neither of those are legitimate actions for any of those involved.
A group of people planning together an improper or illegal act is a conspiracy.
There is ZERO doubt we have a conspiracy here.
We also know that Obama and Biden were actively involved – even directing.
WE now have an audio recording of Stephan Halper talking to one of his mentees in Jan 2017 telling him NOT to work for Flynn as he was going to be fired.
Let that sink in,. Halper is purportedly a professor in England. He is not a member of the Trump administration.
Only Trump can fire Flynn. Yet Halper knows this.
To be clear – the emails among those setting up Flynn prove a conspiracy. But Halper’s remarks suggest a very broad conspiracy.
You are an idiot. Most of these men are pure politicians. They take all sides and the middle. Many hated and feared Trump at the beginning otherwise the hoax would have ended when it began. They wouldn’t directly oppose Trump because that could hurt them. The Never Trumpers have lost tremendous amounts of prestige if you didn’t notice.
You think you are smart but you aren’t. Your ability is in putting a bunch of talking points on the same page even when you are unaware of what they really mean.
” not only was the media duped, but the house and senate were duped”
I think a lot in the House and Senate wanted to be duped.
They probably did want to be duped. Judicial Watch has done a better job of uncovering the story than the entire Congress has.
Of course they wanted to be duped.
Even Schumer said – do not mess with the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday to screw you.
Do you think that Republican house and senate members did not know the same thing ?
Trump did take on the IC – head on. It has been a bloody mess.
Democrats, the media and the left do not seem to grasp that if Trump was actually guilty of anything at all – jay walking,
Between the media the democrats and the IC they would have gotten him.
They failed because Trump has done nothing wrong.
But those going after him crossed numerous lines.
Bingo!
Young, they are one of my favorites. I just wish they did a better job on their website.
The media should look at the brass dossier.
Or aluminum one. Forget the copper one.
The obscurity of the released document and whatever point it supposedly makes – the head of the FBI in 2018 was, and still is, a Trump lifelong GOP appointee -, along with JT’s oft repeated lie about “collusion” is upstaged by the confirmation in the last two days by his own national intelligence apparatus that the Russian’s are continuing their active attempts to interfere in our elections in his favor – as they did in 2016. Trump’s refusal to do anything about it – together with his and campaign officials lying about their actions in 2016 – constitute real time collusion JT is too dense or too bought to recognize.
“A little more than a year ago, American intelligence agencies drafted a classified document reporting that the Russian government favored President Trump in the 2020 presidential election, a finding that fit with their consensus that the Kremlin tried to help him in 2016.
The director of national intelligence was asked to modify the assessment — he did not — and not long afterward, Mr. Trump declared the director was out.
Soon after the new acting director arrived, an intelligence official changed the document, softening the claim that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wanted Mr. Trump to win, according to an article published on Saturday by The New York Times Magazine. The investigation includes details not previously reported about the fears of officials in U.S. intelligence agencies under the Trump administration, who described struggling to brief the president without provoking his anger or losing their jobs…”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/08/us/politics/trump-russia.html
This lengthy article documents the gutting of the National Intelligence Agency leadership by Trump purely to cover Russian actions in his favor. This real time collusion and it is going on today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/08/magazine/us-russia-intelligence.html?
The release is NOT obscure. Sen. Graham is shouting at anyone who will listen.
But the left wing nut press is not listening. They F’d up big time, they were tools in the collusion delusion.
Absolute the Head of the FBI then and now was Wray – and Wray has serious questions to answer
Where exactly is it that anyone has claimed that lying about Trump was not often bipartisan ?
What is JT’s oft repeated lie about “collusion” – there was none. End of story. If you are still saying otherwise – the lie is yours.
And why are we to Trust the National intelligence assessment ? It was garbage in 2016, it is just as bad now.
Absolutely Trump is far more upfront about his confrontations with China – and as that same Assessment claims – China wants Trump gone bad. I would note that China is a 16T economy, Russia is 2T.
But the absense of Trump frothing constantly about Putin, does not mean Putin wants Trump.
In 2016 Putin would have opposed Trump because of what he MIGHT do. In 2020, it is because of what he HAS done.
Anyone who doubts that Both Russia and China would fall over themselves to have Biden as president is incapable of critical thought.
Obama/Biden’s relationships with Russia, China, Iran, and despots arround the world were cozy – until Trump won the election are Russia was set up as a straw man.
There are people in Austrialia saying that if Trump is not re-elected in 2020 that AU and every nation on the South China Sea is F’d.
That China will come rushing back in and absent an agressive posture from the US China will blackmail the rest of Asia.
Look at Hong Hong and immagine that throughout Asia and the pacific – that is what A Biden presidency would look like.
Further Biden has already announced he would F over frackers. How blind do you have to be to grasp that will tripply empower RUSSIA. Without surplus fossil fuels from the US – Russia, Iran, the Saudi’s, the Mideast get to dictate to the EU.
You appear to be blind to the blatant Quid Pro Quo Trump has used with NATO.
Take responsibility for your own defense – build up your own ability to defend against aggressive neighbors like Russia, and the US will guarantee European energy at affordable prices.
To be clear – this does not mean the US will supply Europes energy needs – though we do provide some.
But so long as we guarantee that Europe will have all the Natural Gas they need – they can BUY NG from Russia or the mideast affordably without a gun to their head.
Any Intelligence analyst who thinks that just on energy policy ALONE Putin will take anyone over Trump, is incapable of critical thinking.
This is not even a close call.
While I expect some interference in US elections by foreign powers – one of the things that has come out recently is the participation of Sir Richard Deerlove in the effort to Spy on Trump. Regardless I do not expect anything different than prior elections.
But I do expect ranting by the left. Further we have a huge problem with mail in voting, and that is trivial for foreign countries to exploit.
If the left was actually concerned about foreign interference in US elections they would entirely end mail in voting.
As we have seen from 2016 – it is NOT necescary for a foreign power to consequentially act. it is merely necescary for the left to beleive they have acted.
One of the simplest things that could be done would be to flood the country with forged blank mail in ballots.
But even a flood is not needed – a few thousand would scare the shit out of people. A few thousand would cast doubt over the entire election.
The news is ranting that the results of the 2020 election will not be accepted – of course they will not.
The left has done everything in their power to make those elections as untrustworthy as possible.
Anything less than a Tsunami and most everyone is going to have grave doubts.
“One-fifth of all mail-in ballots disqualified in NYC primary, signaling possible November crisis
Status of disqualified votes hinges on appeal to recent court ruling.
Tens of thousands of mail-in voting ballots in the recent New York Democratic presidential primary election were disqualified without being counted — a sign that the country’s looming presidential election, one which may be conducted significantly by mail, could be facing procedural chaos over countless disputed and uncounted votes.” _JTN
One has to ask, what is used for ID at the polls”
“Counterfeit drivers licenses being smuggled into U.S. from abroad, officials say Customs and Border Protection officers seized nearly 20,000 fake licenses just in Chicago, in first half of 2020 … Most came from China …” JTN
…Are Democrats supporting the Chinese regime over the US?
Everything and everyone is in on the many conspiracies that John thinks rule our world, and of course this one is just another to him. Hey, if they don’t blow Trump, they’re in on it.
JT has repeatedly claimed the Mueller Report was about collusion when it most decidedly, specifically, and legally was not. He ignores the many insrances of contact between the campaign and Russian operatives, agents,and officials and then lies to cover it up, including by Trump himself. Lastly, Trump undercut penaltiesput in place to punish Russia for it’s inteference and refused to do anything else about it up to now, when even his own hand picked lackies running intelligence cannot lie big enough to cover up Russia’s continued dedicated actions to help him again.
Maybe John missed Trump’s blowing Xi while he designed concentration camps, then praising his virus response, but that was before he decided he needed a bogeyman to animate the fools who support him, like John.
Not interested in reading John’s version of reality and history, that’s as far as I got. I DK, maybe deeper in his screed he came out for the Green Party Candidate, but if so, I missed it.
Not within our narrative . . . nothing to see here . . . MOVE ON !!
Yes, but Flynn lied and must go to jail. Just because the media doesn’t know the meaning of missing exculpatory evidence, Flynn lied and must go to jail.
Flynn has clearly lied under penalty of perjury, which is a crime.
Under penalty of perjury, he has stated that he made false statements to the FBI in his Jan. 24, 2017, interview (see, e.g., his signed statement attached to the Statement of Offense, where he declares under penalty of perjury that “I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged” and his affirmations under oath to both Judge Contreras and Judge Sullivan that he made false statements to the FBI).
Under penalty of penalty of perjury, in his personal declaration this year, he also stated “I am innocent of this crime.”
Those statements can’t both be true. So one of these statements is a lie made under penalty of perjury. Do you agree that Flynn lied in one of these?
And those likely isn’t the only conflicting statements that he’s made under penalty (e.g., I bet if I looked, I’d also find conflicting statements about his FARA filings, as he again declared under penalty of perjury that he’d made “made materially false statements and omissions” on those, even though he wasn’t charged for them).
He’s also made statements under penalty of perjury that conflict with his public statements. For example, in his January declaration, he wrote “I still don’t remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak,” but here’s part of what he said in an interview with the Daily Caller in 2017: “‘It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,’ Flynn said. ‘So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.’” But (a) the expulsions were *part* of the sanctions, (b) we know from the transcripts that Kislyak also raised the financial sanctions, and (c) Flynn was making pretty specific statements to the Daily Caller but he now claims he “still” doesn’t remember.
As for whether Flynn lied in his 1/24/2017 interview, the FBI 302 certainly documents a number of false statements by Flynn. If Flynn would rather have a trial, so that the FBI agents who interviewed him can be questioned under oath about what they wrote in the 302, fine by me.
Do you know how many people have confessed to crimes they did not commit ?
Your Ilk threatened to bankrupt him, and his family and go after his son.
That you would make the immoral argument that he “lied” when he plead guilty shows that you have no shame, no morals.
Your ilk are out burning and looting and telling us that the police are liars and abusive.
And yet when presented with multiple obvious examples of criminal abuse by prosecutors and law enforcement – you pretend there is no problem.
I am very glad I am not you.
And I am even more glad that I’m not you, John.
That you try to tar me by making claims about some “ilk” who aren’t me is dishonest and a straw man argument.
It’s a fact that Flynn knowingly and willfully made contradictory statements while under penalty of perjury, which logically leads to the conclusion that he lied, since they cannot both be true.
“That you would make the immoral argument that he “lied” when he plead guilty …”
ROFL that you assume I argued that. I did not. I said that he made contradictory statements under penalty of perjury, call them S-1abc (his statement “I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged” and his allocutions to Contreras and Sullivan) and S-2 (“I am innocent of this crime.”).
**You** are asserting that S-1abc were lies, but **I** did not say or imply that. I simply noted that either S1abc **or** S2 was a lie. In my comment, I didn’t take a position about which one was a lie. But if you want me to take a position, I personally believe it to be S2, not S1abc.
Look at how astoundingly sloppy you are with your baseless and false inferences. You aren’t even aware that you’re inferring something I didn’t imply and don’t believe.
FWIW, if the 302 is accurate, Flynn lied about other things, like not knowing about the sanctions before speaking with Kislyak (“FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government BlackBerry was not working”). He was in touch with the transition team in Mar-a-Lago by text and phone (his personal phone rather than the government Blackberry) before he spoke with Kislyak, and K.T. McFarland declared to the FBI that they’d discussed the sanctions. Is she lying?
The 302 says “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not.” But we know from the transcripts that Flynn brought up the expulsions, and as I quoted from Flynn in the 2/14/2017 Daily Caller article, Flynn admitted there to discussing the expulsions with Kislyak. How is it that Flynn could recall something with the Daily Caller on 2/14 that the 302 says he didn’t recall with the FBI on 1/24? And why did Pence and Spicer both state publicly that Flynn had told them he didn’t discuss the sanctions with Kislyak when the transcripts show he did? Were Pence and Spicer lying too? Do you think that Strzok and Pientka were lying about everything, and if so, do you also think they were lying when they said that they didn’t discern “physical indications of deception”?
Yup, I’m extremely glad that I’m not you, John.
“That you try to tar me by making claims about some “ilk” who aren’t me is dishonest and a straw man argument.”
FALSE.
I have grouped you with those who share similar views on a subject.
IF you wish to claim that on some specific issue where I have grouped you with Democrats, and the left and others of your “ilk”
You are free to do so. All that is required is to openly disagree with the positions of those you were grouped with.
I would be happy to hear that you do not share the same views as the left or the media.
But I have seen no evidence of that.
To the extent that there is some issue with my grouping – it is that you have made CLEAR your views and I have attributed the same or similar views to the left. To the extent I MIGHT be dishonest or defaming anyone – I would not be defaming YOU, but “your ilk”, democrats, the left etc. Because I have just assumed – likely correctly that they share your views.
“It’s a fact that Flynn knowingly and willfully made contradictory statements while under penalty of perjury, which logically leads to the conclusion that he lied, since they cannot both be true.
“That you would make the immoral argument that he “lied” when he plead guilty …”
ROFL that you assume I argued that. I did not. ”
That is EXACTLY what you are arguing above.
The only time Flynn made statements under oath was in his guilty plea.
The statements to the FBI are not under oath.
Statements in public are not under oath.
You are most clearly “Committed To Dis Honest Discussion”.
Me: “Flynn knowingly and willfully made contradictory statements while under penalty of perjury, which logically leads to the conclusion that he lied, since they cannot both be true.”
You: “The only time Flynn made statements under oath was in his guilty plea.”
Look, John, I mostly ignore your comments, because you’re dishonest and boring, and I consider exchanges with you to be a waste of time. But I’m going to correct you on one thing here, so you can learn something:
I didn’t say “under oath.” I said “under penalty of perjury.” Those two phrases aren’t synonyms; instead, the former is a subset of the latter, as the phrase “under penalty of perjury” includes BOTH statements made under oath AND written statements signed under penalty of perjury. Flynn signed more than one written statement under penalty of perjury, including the Statement of the Offense and his personal declaration submitted in January.
My guess is that you’ve never read these and so didn’t know/understand the full range of statements he made under penalty of perjury.
No wonder you misinterpreted so much of what I wrote and falsely concluded that I’d made an “argument that he “lied” when he plead guilty.”
And in your ignorance, you then falsely and insulting claim “You are most clearly ‘Committed To Dis Honest Discussion.’”
Educate yourself about what “under penalty of perjury” means.
Educate yourself about the documents Flynn signed under penalty of perjury.
Educate yourself that if I say “either A or B is false,” that doesn’t imply that I’ve argued A is false, since it could instead be that B is false.
And for the record, your claim “Flynn did not discuss the Sanctions with Kislyak” is false. Flynn himself introduced the expulsions, which were part of the sanctions. Formally, the sanctions were defined in Executive Order 13757 (as noted in the Statement of the Offense), but that EO amended Executive Order 13694, and you have to read both together to understand the sanctions in full.
“no actual new Sanctions had been enacted at the time of the call”
That’s also false. EO 13757 took effect at 12:01a.m. EST on Dec. 29, 2016, which was before the phone call. Have you even read it?
“[Flynn] never specifically refered to anything Obama did”
Bullsh*t. Among other things, Flynn said about the Obama Admin that “they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country.” Kislyak also raised them: “One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned.”
“BTW where have you gotten and actual 302 ?”
It was entered into the case docket as an exhibit in 2018. Didn’t you know, after all this time?
“none of this is in any 302 before Aug 2017”
Bullsh*t. The 302 was filed on 2/15/17.
You tell me to “Go actually read the Transcripts,” but I did long before today, and you’re showing that you haven’t read a whole swath of relevant documents. So spend your own time reading, instead of lecturing me about things you don’t understand nearly as well as you think you do.
This is part of why I generally ignore your comments. And I’ll now go back to that.
“Look, John, I mostly ignore your comments, because you’re dishonest and boring, and I consider exchanges with you to be a waste of time.”
Except that you do not mostly ignore my comments, and it is self evident that I am not the one with the honesty problem.
“I didn’t say “under oath.” I said “under penalty of perjury.” ”
Correct.
“Those two phrases aren’t synonyms;:”
Correct.
” instead, the former is a subset of the latter”
False.
Perjury is very specific. Though there are some differences between federal and state law, as a rule Perjury is a very serious crime,
It is reserved for material false statements under oath where there is an oportunity to correct.
“as the phrase “under penalty of perjury” includes BOTH statements made under oath AND written statements signed under penalty of perjury.”
Again I do not wish to speak universally – though I doubt things are different in federal court, but written statements are made under penalty of specific law – not perjury. Most everything filled in court requires a verification that states subject to the penalty of some specific law the statements in the filing are true.
Every filing of Van Grack affirmed that they were all true under penatly of law. And many of them are know provably false.
“Flynn signed more than one written statement under penalty of perjury, including the Statement of the Offense and his personal declaration submitted in January.”
You are making a very specific claim. It is only true if it is literally true i.e. if the filed statements specifically say “under penalty of perjury”
As an example I have filed dozens of petitions, motions, etc. all of which require the following verification:
I, _________, being duly authorized to do so, verify that the facts set forth in the
foregoing petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
This is specific PA Court filings. But there are similar provisions in federal courts.
In other contexts, such as loan applications there may be a similar citation at the end where you affirm subject to the penalties of some specific law that what you are saying it correct. Some of these are more serious than others.
Regardless they are not the same.
Of you are going to be precise – then you are obligated to be both precise and accurate.
Lastly, this whole plethora of claims you are making all falls under the same issue.
There are very very few instances ever where anyone is prosecuted for false confessions, and to my knowledge NEVER for coerced confessions. The only prosecutions EVER that I am aware of are from people who walked into a police station and falsely confessed and diverted massive amounts of police resources. Even then prosecutions are rare.
You note Flynn purportedly did this multiple times and multiple ways – that changes nothing.
You can state 10,000 times under 10,000 different laws that you did something illegal that you did not actually do.
If you were coerced or extorted – the CRIME is that of coercion or extortion. It is one of the prosecutor or the courts.
When the government behaves lawlessly, the law no longer applies to their victims.
Flynn was illegally targeted, violating his civil rights BEFORE Mueller was appointed, and that what Mueller and his gang did was even more criminal.
God forbid someone like these crooks should ever go after you.
But then your $hit does not stink.
“Educate yourself ”
Take your own advice.
Further you are not entitled to give orders.
The Justice Department withdrew.
There is no prosecution.
Even a Soviet “Show Trial” couldn’t proceed.
Sullivan is more egregiously unconstitutional and highly criminal than “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was.
George, the prosecution phase was already over.
This case was in the sentencing phase.
The Justice Dept. submitted a motion to dismiss, but the case has not yet been dismissed, and whether it’s dismissed is up to the court (either the CADC, if they choose to grant the writ, or Sullivan, if the CADC chooses to deny the writ request).
Assuming that the CADC rules in Sullivan’s favor (which is what they seemed to be leaning towards), it would be legal for Sullivan to have the hearing about the motion to dismiss (just like a judge has hearings about other motions) and then rule on it. If he finds it appropriate, he could deny the motion and sentence Flynn, and Flynn could then appeal that ruling.
Sullivan hasn’t done anything unconstitutional.
The Justice Department withdrew.
There is no prosecution.
Even a Soviet “Show Trial” couldn’t proceed.
Sullivan is more egregiously unconstitutional and highly criminal than “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was.
“And for the record, your claim “Flynn did not discuss the Sanctions with Kislyak” is false. Flynn himself introduced the expulsions, which were part of the sanctions. ”
False. Again words have specific meanings.
Van Grack in his charging documents made it explictily clear that “sanctions” refered to specific formal actions taken by President Obama, refering to a specific directive that did NOT include the expulsions.
If you are going to use a term in the context of the Flynn procedings then it must be used consistent with its meaning in those proceedings.
The expulsions are not part of the Sanctions as referenced by Van Grack in charging Flynn and as Flynn plead.
I am not going to reread the Flynn transcripts to verify that you are incorrect about what Flynn introduced.
It is my recollection that Flynn introduced NOTHING. And certainly nothing specific.
Flynn either did not touch on at all, or barely touched on what Obama had already done.
Flynn’s focus was almost entirely on getting Russia to mute its response.
For the most part his discussion was hypothetical.
If Russia MUST respond to WHATEVER Obama does, stick to “tit for tat”, not escallation.
The vast majority of americans can read the conversation and wonder why Susan Rice was not on the phone to Kislyak pleading in the same way.
I strongly suspect that you are wrong about who introduced what. But i am not going to waste my time proving it.
You CONSTANTLY demonstrate that you have no interest in honest discussion.
That if you write a sentence that there are likely multiple misrepresentations in each sentence.
That not a single word that you say can be relied on without independently verifying it,
You have been caught multiple times – and then we go through this nonsense you are playing now,
Where you concurently claim to be correct because of hyper precession AND correct because of broad generalization at the same time.
Really ? Who buys that ?
“Formally, the sanctions were defined in Formally, the sanctions were defined in Executive Order 13757 (as noted in the Statement of the Offense), but that EO amended Executive Order 13694, and you have to read both together to understand the sanctions in full. (as noted in the Statement of the Offense), but that EO amended Executive Order 13694, and you have to read both together to understand the sanctions in full.”
Irrelevant -you can not make a crime out of the retroactive nature of an EO.
REgardless EO 13694 “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.”
I do not recall any discussion by Flynn or Kislyak of Cyber Crimes. So can we completely put to bed the irrelevance of 13694 ?
EO 13757 is “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities”
Again – please cite the passages of the Flynn Kislyak conversations that talk about Cyber crimes ?
There is a list of specific entities and individuals listed as an apendix – can you cite where Kislyak or Flynn discussed any one of these ?
So lets be clear Committed to Dis Honest Discussion.
If you want to be specific – then you had better be right about your specific claims. Further you can not prove a specific claim with a generalization.
Flynn and Kislyak did discuss how Flynn hoped Russia would respond to FUTURE expulsions – as a generalization.
Finally the EO’s referenced were about seizing the PROPERTY of specific people and entities – not explusions.
Can you cite ANYWHERE in the transcripts where Flynn and Kislyak discuss property seizures ?
Though to be correct – the discussion would have to be specific and refering to the past, not the future.
Finally – while as demonstrated – using the EO’s that YOU have cited with respect to the charging documents, it is self Evident Flynn did NOT discuss the Sanctions with Kislyak.
Lets address the possibility that he actually had.
There is nothing illegal about that.
So the claim against Flynn amounts to not lying about a non-crime to someone not engaged in a legitimate investigation, of information that was obviously not investigative, and not material.
Aside from explaining why Strzok ETC were still investigating, Further explain why they were making inquiries about a non-crime that they already were fully aware of ?
I have noted before that the FBI can not charge you with 18 US 1001 for lying about your lunch.
This is the same. The FBI had already found “no dergotatory information on Flynn” – after reviewing the calls.
It is self evident that there was nothing improper about the calls – and the FBI new that prior to interviewing Flynn.
There was no knowledge to be gained from questioning flynn.
Certainly no knowledge that the FBI was entitled to have.
The FBI is NOT entitled to investigate the legal actions of US citizens.
“FWIW, if the 302 is accurate”
Even today the FBI is unable to produce a contemporaneous 302.
The earliest versions that have been provided say that Flynn did not lie.
And you really do not want to jump into the Sanctions claim – as that is a huge loser for you.
Flynn did not discuss the Sanctions with Kislyak – we now have the transcript of their conversation.
First Not only does “Sanctions” have a specific meaning – and Van Grack explicitly (and falsely under penalty of law) referenced that specific meaning in his charges regarding Flynn, and no actual new Sanctions had been enacted at the time of the call, The closing of various Russian fascilities in the US and the expulsion of Russians are not Sanctions – they are neither sanctions generally by law, nor are the sanctions that Pres. Obama imposed AFTER the Flynn call.
But separately Flynn ONLY discussed the russian RESPONSE, he never specifically refered to anything Obama did or discussed how that might change under a future Trump administration. Unlike several of Trump’s calls, Flynn’s call was “perfect”, it was what the Incoming US NSA should be saying to the Russians. It is what Susan Rice SHOULD have been saying.
Flynn plead with Kislyak to restrain Russian responses to ANYTHING that Obama did. To respond protportionately if he must, but preferably not to respond at all.
You can lob terms like “lie” imprecisely. But when you charge someone with a crime you must be PRECISE.
Whether you like it or not it is SELF EVIDENT that Flynn “lied” in his guilty plea, because that plea was about lying to the FBI about discussing Sanctions with Kislyak.
We still have no idea what Strzok and Flynn discussed – the FBI has produced no credible or contemporaneous 302.
But we do know what Flynn discussed with Kislyak – and it was NOT what he was charged with lying about.
Go actually read the Transcripts.
The 302 says “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not.”
Skipping the fact that none of this is in any 302 before Aug 2017 – 6 months after the interview – and BTW where have you gotten and actual 302 ?
The statement by Flynn about CAN NOT be a lie.
It is extremely difficult to prove that someone actually recalls something they claim not to recall.
Further it is NEVER a lie to not recall something in an impromptu interview as opposed to testimony or a scheduled interview.
When you are subpeoned to testify you are told the maters you will be questioned on and you are expected to familiarize yourself with them.
Not being familiar with material when questioned off the cuff is NEVER a lie.
The fact that the FBI was fiddling around with legitimate diplomatic conversations and interfering with this constructive conversation by Flynn with Kislyak is atrocious insubodination and interference of one executive branch operation with another. Now Democrats never seem to notice or comment on that, but I want to throw it out there. How the hell can President be expected to manage his team if rogue FBI agents are going to treat them like spies for doing their jobs which precisely means TALKING TO RUSSIANS ABOUT DIFFICULT TOPICS.
That is diplomacy and the FBI should not be allowed to interfere with it.
Back when I was younger, it was always Democrats who were making this point, that anti-communist red baiting interfered with diplomacy
I guess i understood their point because here i am decades later making the same point about a different group of Russian diplomat converstions
and remember fools: they still have the nukes so we BETTER KEEP TALKING
A private citizen cannot engage in “diplomacy” in the meaning of the word you imply. and especially if in direct response to actions of the President with the target of those actions and in an effort to blunt them. Given the help the target gave the citizen’s boss in obtaining his future position, and the bosses almost certain knowledge of the discussion, collusion with an active enemy is the best description of the event.
“A private citizen cannot engage in “diplomacy” in the meaning of the word you imply”
They can’t ?
Tell that to Armond Hammer, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry. Dennis Rodman.
“and especially if in direct response to actions of the President with the target of those actions”
Again false.
“and in an effort to blunt them.”
Both false and not what was done.
John Kerry has been Jetting arround the world trying to Blunt Trumps foreign policy.
“Given the help the target gave the citizen’s boss in obtaining his future position”
Again false, you keep returning to the “collusion delusion”.
“and the bosses almost certain knowledge of the discussion, collusion with an active enemy is the best description of the event.”
Rather than all this foggy inuendo, Try substituting real facts and names and remove the spin. Instead of substituting editorial conclusions.
Report the FACTS.
Flynn plead with Kislyak to get Russia to NOT escalate.
Even Obama should have wanted that.
Or are you actually trying to claim that on his way out the Door Obama was trying to start a jihad with Russia – that Obama’s goal WAS to get Russia to escalate and Flynn thwarted Obama’s ambition of creating a bloody mess for Trump to have to sort out ?
Put simply there is no way Flynn interfered with Obama UNLESS Obama was up to no good.
Kurtz,
The reason for the FBI interview wasn’t that Flynn had talked to Kislyak. They interviewed him because Pence and Spicer and Priebus had all stated that Flynn told them he haadn’t spoken to Kislyak about the sanctions Obama imposed, which was false, and Flynn’s lying to them raised questions about whether Flynn was compromised.
If the incoming NSA is lying to the VP-Elect about communications with a key adversary, it’s wholly appropriate for the FBI to look into it.
And just to be clear: there’s only 1 president at a time, and it’s inappropriate for an incoming NSA — someone not yet in office, working on behalf of someone not yet in office — to ask an adversary to do anything contrary to current U.S. policy (including the UN vote). Not only that, but Flynn chose *not* to talk to Kislyak about the “difficult topic” of Russia having interfered in our election and how unacceptable that was.
HEre is the purported discussion “of the UN Vote”.
Please tell me what is wrong with it ?
Flynn says the U.S.’s “strategic goal is stability in the Middle East.”
“That’s the strategic goal, and … and, you know, between you and I, and you know this, and we know this, and you know…and between Moscow and Washington, we will not achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical Islamist crowd. Period,” Flynn says.
Flynn adds: “So, I’m adamant about that and I want to make sure that you know that, and in conversations that we have in the future, if there’s a common, en..a common threat that we face…”
Kislyak cuts him off and says: “I agree with you.”
Flynn goes on to tell Kislyak he is “sickened” by the murder of the Russian ambassador to Turkey.
The two wish one another a “happy Christmas and New Years,” and Flynn tells Kislyak to “please call me anytime, okay?” Kislyak says: “Ah, the same here.”
“If the incoming NSA is lying to the VP-Elect about communications with a key adversary, it’s wholly appropriate for the FBI to look into it.”
I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect. Needs to be Committed takes leaps of faith bypassing common sense questions that she doesn’t have the answer to. That is not quite lying but comes close because she doesn’t bother with anything that upsets her narrative. She frequently lies by omission.
The real question is what is the FBI supposed to do about something the incoming NSA did that the FBI knows is inappropriate? They are supposed to warn the President Elect but they didn’t do that. They had been too busy spying on the President elect and leaking all sorts of information to the press so it appears they decided to keep the President Elect out of the loop while figuring out how to hold things together since they knew they were doing things they weren’t supposed to do.
DOJ IG Horowitz found no evidence of spying or partisan behavior by the FBI in their investigation into the Trump campaign’s relations with Russia. This report was released in December.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html
“DOJ IG Horowitz found no evidence of spying or partisan behavior by the FBI in their investigation into the Trump campaign’s relations with Russia. This report was released in December.”
Still spouting that nonsense.
AS Horowitz explained, he was required to take those he questioned at their word.
If they said they were not motivated by political bias – he was required to accept that.
He confirmed in his testimony that many of the texts of Strzok and page as well as actions of others were consistent with political bias.
Because Horowitz is not a moron. The bias is huge.
Not only was there no evidence of spying, By the Book, but Allan’s statement “I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect” is simply ignorant.
There’s been plenty of discussion of that very issue (discussion in the Mueller Report, in the news, in the discussions here, …): the FBI legally knew because Pence made public statements about what Flynn had told him re: the calls to Kislyak, and Pence’s public statements about what Flynn told him were directly contradicted by the transcripts. So either Flynn lied to Pence, or Pence was lying to the public about what Flynn had told him. And Spicer and others had made similar public statements about Flynn not having discussed the sanctions, so there too, either Flynn lied to Spicer and others, or they were all lying to the public. The FBI assumed that Flynn was lying to Pence rather than that Pence was lying to the public, and they needed to ask Flynn about it. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that it’s OK for the incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about communications with a foreign adversary.
For ex., Pence said on TV on 1/15/17: “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation [between Flynn and Kislyak on 12/29/17] … They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” when the transcripts make clear that Flynn and Kislyak DID discuss things “having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia” in their 12/29 conversation, such as:
Flynn: “So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that, that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it – don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?”
and
Kislyak: “One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned”
At this late date, does Allan truly not know that “they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country” and “the measures that have been announced today .. that now FSB and GRU … are sanctioned” are references to the sanctions Obama announced on 12/29 (for which the executive order had been signed on 12/28, effective at 12:01a.m. on 12/29), which included 35 Russian intelligence operatives being expelled and that also specifically listed the Russian intelligence agencies, FSB and GRU?
Or maybe he does know, but simply can’t bring himself to admit it.
“I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect” is simply ignorant.”
What was the lie, Needs to be Committed? My reference was regarding your multiple statements not the FBI. You jumble so many things together confusing truths and falsehoods. You want to disguise that your sole desire is not the truth but what satisfies your political desires. Morality is something that you find as an annoyance when seeking your goals. In this attempt you confuse yourself.
We almost all know what Pence said to Kislyak. Additionally we all know, except you, that there is a difference between sanctions and sending Russians home. We also know that memories are not perfect and questions asked are not necessarily interpreted in the same manner as the interogator expected them to be interpreted. These are things you don’t recognize so you pounce on Flynn because his memory wasn’t perfect and the interogator didn’t make himself clear enough (Funny how the ones in the room didn’t think Flynn was lying or trying to hide anything he wasn’t supposed to hide… That is just a small detail to NTBC who likes to use spin rather than the truth or logic. She thrives on this type of rhetoric.). All this was being done without a legal basis and without Flynn even knowing that this wasn’t just a friendly talk. Of course the interrogation wasn’t even legally sanctioned and Flynn wasn’t with an attorney who might advise Flynn that a faulty memory could lead to charges by a corrupt FBI.
You think it is appropriate for the FBI to not tell the incoming President they believe Flynn is lying and that he and others have been under investigation. Instead you want them to investigate without the incoming President’s knowledge and do so in an inappropriate manner. That is stupid, but you won’t recognize what the correct procedure is. The rule of law, ethics and morality don’t matter to you.
I don’t know that Flynn lied. You keep saying he did but what is causing the confusion? We know Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions with Kislyak or at least the sanctions that were in the mind of Flynn. What did Flynn do that was wrong? What information did the VP have, where did it come from and how did the VP get to believe something was wrong? What games were being played?
You are like a truck running down rational thought so you can state your conclusions as fact when they are created with a lot of fiction and assumptions.
“So either Flynn lied to Pence, or Pence was lying to the public about what Flynn had told him.”
There are other possibilities such as no one intentionally lied to anyone but that would be impossible to you because it doesn’t agree with your narrative. We cannot forget all the spying, all the leaking, all the misstatement of facts by the MSM, but as long as this leads to agreement with your lies you are perfectly OK to accept, repeat and perpetuate. A classy person you are not.
I recognize many of the statements made by all even on TV, but not everything said is accurate nor should that be the focus. Whatever Flynn said or didn’t say is not a crime. What you have accused him of is not a crime. The words he used that led to his prosecution still remain unknown to all of us even though you will tell us they exist and where to find them. You lied when you said that and you continue to lie.
Yes, I know Russians were sent home even though you lied saying I didn’t. What I do know is no one has been able to trace the events without gaps or distortions to prove that Flynn who is innocent is guilty. You jump around a lot. You confuse dates. You confuse words. You confuse the law. You do all those things and others but you cannot provide the evidence to prove Flynn guilty.
“Not only was there no evidence of spying,”
That clueless ?
And you want ANYONE to beleive anything you say.
From NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html
You do know who Stephan Halper is ?
And the FISA Warrants ? Those were so the FBI could play Footsi with Carter Page – and a couple thousand of his aquantances ?
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse later confirmed that, yes, “the FBI gathered substantial evidence of Page’s past electronic communications,” including multiple “emails between Page and members of the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign concerning campaign related matters.”
From the first FISA Application
“because Page was one of the first identified foreign policy advisors for [Trump’s] campaign, the FBI believes that Page likely established close relationships with other members of [Trump’s campaign.]”
“believes that Page likely established close relationships with other members of [Trump’s] campaign and likely would have continued to have access to members of [Trump’s] campaign, which he could exploit to attempt to exert influence on foreign policy matters, regardless of whatever formal role he played in the campaign.”
No spying at all
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/996917899825590272
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/996917903709499393
“There’s been plenty of discussion of that very issue (discussion in the Mueller Report, in the news, in the discussions here, …): the FBI legally knew because Pence made public statements about what Flynn had told him re: the calls to Kislyak,”
You still do nto grasp that you are not a credible source and what you say is not trusted because you say it.
If Pence spoke publicly – in sufficient detail for the FBI to glean this – then you can cite Pence’s public remarks,
Though i am not sure why this would be meaningful anyway. Why would Pence’s public remarks about a classified communication be specific enough for the FBI to know what you are claiming.
Just to be clear – I doubt the FBI was spying on Pence. They were just making shit up as they went along. And early in the Trump administration, Trump and Pence had not yet learned they could not Trust the Comey, Yates, …
Just think about the significance of that – the Incoming President has to deal with the fact that the DOJ and FBI are plotting against him and his administration.
Are you honestly going to say that Obama, Biden, Rice, Comey, Strzok were not doing exactly that in Jan 5 meeting ?
And on Jan. 1 2017 – who is it that Yates and Comey were working for ? The current President ? Or the prior one.
I beleive you say that the US has only one president at a time. As of noon Jan 20 2017 that president was Donald Trump.
From that instant forward Comey Yates and all the Obama holdovers and the rest of the federal government owed their loyalty to the current president, to his policies and the expectations of those who elected him. Not Former President Obama.
From that instant forward the FBI was obligated to inform President Trump, as well as his NSA of the highly dubious counter-intelligence investigation they were running against him. Trump was the elected president of the united States.
Should Biden manage to win in 2020 – what will the response be if you discover that Barr and Wray were running a secret investigation of Biden’s collusion with China ? After all – Biden has all kinds of ties to China, and Russia and the Ukraine.
Some GOP version go Christopher Steele could be off right now writing political fiction about Biden getting golden showers in the Beijing Peace hotel. And Hunter acting as bag man. Maybe speculating that TikTok is some Biden Xi collaboration to spy on Trump.
You constantly speculate that Trump will not leave if he loses.
Well Obama did not. He left his coterie of loyalists – working for the ex president in place to wreak havoc on the current president.
We have had 4 years of false leaks from “anonymous government sources” – that’s OK with you ?
What if that happens to Biden should he be elected – is that how you “play the game” ?
You said you were honest and admit it when you are wrong.
How much more “Trump was spied on” stories, reports, etc need I bury you with before you are prepared to admit error ?
Margot Cleveland provides not merely a detailed explanation of exactly why you are making an impossibly strained analysis,
But also why – not only are you wrong, But that Van Grack is Wrong and that Van Grack LIED to the court.
You read the words – but you jump to conclusions that are not supported by the FACTS.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/new-flynn-transcripts-confirm-mueller-team-lied-to-the-court-and-the-country/
AGAIN when you are alleging that others LIED – and particularly when you are alleging CRIMES.
It is important to be PRECISE.
And you are making exactly the error that Van Grack did.
You are confusing Expulsions with Sanctions,
and you are confusing What Kislyak said with What Flynn said.
BTW this was actually addressed BY FLYNN in 2017.
He stated that Kislyak may have mentioned Sanctions, but that He – Flynn, did not discuss sanctions.
You have the Transcripts – Van Grack had the Transcripts – there is no excuse for either you or Van Grack to make errors, to misstate Flynn’s remarks. Fynn did not have these transcripts until very recently. He did not have these Transcripts when Strzok interviewed him, He did not have them during the myriads of hours that Mueller interviewed him. He did not have them any of the times he plead guilty. He did not have them when he was falsely accused of lying to Pence.
And yet the actual record shows not that Flynn lied, but that Yates, Lied, that Mueller Lied, that Van Grack lied, and that YOU are lying now.
The only person who uses the word Sanctions – is Kisylak, I beleive he uses it a single time, at the end of a call, in a remark that Flynn does not respond to. Further you can CLAIM that Kislyak was refering to Obama’s EO of Dec. 29, but from the context, you can not KNOW that for certain. Even more important, you can not KNOW that Flynn knew that.
It is possible that Flynn did, it is possible that he did not. Contra Van Grack we do not KNOW that the Obama administration shared with Flynn the Dec. 29 EO, and it is highly unlikely that they did.
So at the VERY BEST, you have Kislyak MAYBE refering to the EO, which Flynn MAY OR MAY NOT have known about, and Flynn ignoring Kislyak.
And EVEN WORSE, Van Grack yold the court – with the transcripts available to him, and plenty of time to be SURE that he was right, that Sanctions came up AGAIN in a later call, and they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT.
You have to make an enormous amount of assumptions and put words into Flynn’s mouth that he did not say, and conclude that an ambiguous remark at the end of the call by Kislyak can be understood in only one way, and that Flynn understood it that way, and that his non response was an actual meaningful response to get Flynn lying – that is a reach.
But to find that YOU are lying that Van Grack is Lying to the court, and that Mueller is lying and that IF strzok claimed Flynn talked to Kislyak about Sanctions – then StrZok is lying – all of that is trivial.
If you want to claim “yeah, yeah” constitutes Flynn discussing Sanctions – then by the same measures – YOU are lying, Van Grack is lying and Mueller is lying.
But if you conclude that Kislyak’s remarks are not clearl;y about the Dec. 29 EO and/or that Flynn did not know about the EO during the call, AND/OR that Flynn did not respond to Kislyak – then you and Van Grack and Mueller are LYING.
It is probably more accurate to describe your remarks as SPINNING rather than lying, misrepresentation.
Those of Mueller and Van Grack are much more serious though the misrepresentation can be attributable to imprecision.
The Mueller report and Van Grack’s charging statement are all REQUIRED to be PRECISE.
And they had MONTHS to get it right and all the information in the world to do so.
And so did you.
Why Flynn was ambushed repeatedly and denied access to records of his own communications, and accused of lying for what turns out to be really good recollection of a phone call that took place between months and years earlier.
If you really want to send Flynn to Jail for lying – there is a far darker hotter place for you, Mueller and Van Grack, for much more egregious lies.
So are you ready to let this too go ?
Are you ready to admit that YOU ERRED ?
Are you ready to admit that you have micro parsed yourself into hell,
and falsely accused someone else of lying.
And again Why you accuse someone else of Lying – the burden of proof is on you, and that burden is HIGH.
The benefit of all ambiguity always goes to the accused not the accusor.
You are claiming Flynn made a mistake. You are claiming that he made a deliberate moral choice to provide false information.
A lie is not merely a mistake – though Flynn did not even make a Mistake Flynn did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak.
You can debagte whether Kislyak tried to discuss sanctions with Flynn,
You can debate whether Flynn knew about sanctions or knew that was what Kislyak was discussing.
But there is no debate that Flynn did not bring them up, and that he did not discuss them.
AGAIN – you are accusing someone of LYING – not of error.
You are accusing someone of a moral failure, not inaccuracy, not misremembering.
I keep trying to get through to you – that when you accuse someone of a moral failure – you can not be wrong.
You can not even be in the grey area. Moral accusations are binary – your right or you are wrong.
And YOU are wrong.
You quote Pence and the transcript. You PRETEND there is some conflict.
And yet there is not.
Flynn EXPLICITLY stuck to – Whatever Obama does – please do not escalate.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to discuss something that has not happened yet and that you do not know what will be in the specificity that you require to make it into a lie.
i would further note the Pence remarks you cite were 10 days AFTER the Obama Biden strzok, rice, comey meeting to setup Flynn.
So you STILL have a major timeline problem.
BTW, you also have a huge problem because Comey, McGhan, Yates, Strzok have all testified DIFFERENTLY on this.
“I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect”
I can think of many explanations for that, and every one of them is corrupt.
The simplest is that the FBI was spying on the VP.
John, you quote Allan (“I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect”) and then you say “I can think of many explanations for that, and every one of them is corrupt.”
You continue to ignore the non-corrupt explanation that was already presented to you: the FBI knew because Pence stated on TV on 1/15/17 that: “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation [between Flynn and Kislyak on 12/29/17] … They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” when the transcripts make clear that Flynn and Kislyak DID discuss things “having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”
And that non-corrupt explanation was in the Mueller Report (and news reports, and previous discussions here), so if you cannot think of it, perhaps you never bothered to read it in the first place.
If every explanation you can think of “is corrupt,” that’s a symptom of willful ignorance/denial on your end.
You say you are not obsessed with me – and yet you reply to Allan and address the comment to me.
I can not find your claimed Pence statement – and you are not a reliable reporter.
As you micro parse remarks, that requires an accurate transcript – and that means NOT from you.
You botched the Flynn Transcript by decpetive editing, I had to find it elsewhere to establish that Only Kislyak used the world sanction and Flynn did not respond.
Why am I supposed to trust you on Pence’s statement ?
Further you are accusing people of lying, it is YOUR burden to get EVERYTHING accurate.
Something you just do not understand.
I would note that you inserted YOUR claims of context into Pence’s remarks. Atleast you were open about that.
But why am I to assume your inserted context is correct ?
Next, WHY is it FBI’s business to fact check what Pence is saying ?
They did not do so over remarks by Rice or Clinton ?
Commited To disHonest Discussion:
The whole Mueller investigation was corrupt.
While Mueller wasted 22 months and 500 pages trying as hard as possible to avoid the truth – there was no “There there” and never was, and he knew or should have known from the start.
Horowitz concluded that XFH lost the foundations to continue in late January 2017.
If XFH was dead – then so was the entire Mueller investigation.
Please do not try to sell any of the garbage from Mueller.
But for the fact that he was clearly incompetent in his house and senate testimony, and clearly Meuller was pretty clueless about the investigation and report that bear his name, he should be prosecuted for myriads of civil rights violatuions. and disbarred for misconduct – as should much of his team.
Mostly the same people who Horowitz condemned in his report worked on the Mueller team.
Mueller destroyed the page and Strzok phones AFTER Horowitz requested them.
He lost the prosecution of the only actual russians in this mess – because they actually went to court and called him out before and honest judge for lies.
Mueller should be studied for decades as the prototypical example of prosecutorial misconduct.
Everyone on Mueller’s team and XFR should be barred from public service forever.
“If every explanation you can think of “is corrupt,” that’s a symptom of willful ignorance/denial on your end.”
When Alex Jones is more credible than you – you should be re-evaluating your own judgement – because Jones is bat $h!t crazy.
You say there is no “corruption” and you expect to be treated as credible.
You accuse everyone whose views disagree with yours of being a liar,
But excuse much more egregious conduct of those whose positions you agree with.
And you expect to be views as credible ?
You admit that you do not bother to read arguments from those you disagree with.
And you expect to be taken as credible ?
As to corruption – we have the emails from Jan 5 through Flynn’s interview as the FBI setup Flynn.
There was no investigative purpose.
At the start they were terrified – because Flynn was about to be NSA and the FBI had cleared him, and they were going to have to tell him about XFH. This is not speculation on my part – they discussed this.
They had to tell Flynn, and they could not tell Flynn and eventually the solution they settle on was to “Set him Up”
They were open about this – debating whether to warn him that this was an investigative interview, and if so how to do so without getting his guard up. They ultimately decided NOT to give the warning that people being actually interviewed by FBI are given.
This was not a legitimate interview anyway and they knew it.
And getting him prosecuted was icing if possible. The goal was to get him fired – so they did not have to tell him about XFH.
Flynn new how the Intelligence community worked and was looking for an excuse to clean house and XFH would have given him just that.
No successor would be worse, And Trump did not know anyone else in the intelligence community.
He would have to pick somebody he did not know that they could work.
So you want me to beleive these people ?
The US has only one president at a time – and these people were working for and loyal to the FORMER president.
The one who started this abomination.
And you want me to beleive these people ?
Bush’s staff went out of their way to make things easy for Obama’s new administration.
The Obama people commented on how unexpected that was.
But that is typical of those on the left.
They were unable to see why the outgoing Bushies would be helpful to them.
Because for those on the left – their power is everything. There is no best interests of the country.
There is their own best interests.
And we have watched as the obamanites left the whitehouse like Hitler left Germany, scortched earth.
How those who stayed did their damnedest to torpedo the new adminsitration.
When Obama beat McCain in 2008
I said two prayers.
First I prayed that Obama would grow into the shoes of the president,
That he could go beyond being a community organizer and serve the best interests of ALL the country,
That as president he would respond to facts and truth rather then ideology.
Second I prayed that I was wrong about everything I knew to be true, that by some miracle even though Obama was likely to do things i knew would fail, that somehow they would succeed. I hoped against hope that the laws of economics were not as 200 years had taught, but would respond to the commands of the president. That on issue after issue I was wrong.
Because that would be best for the country.
As we have seen since 2016 – you, democrats, those on the left are not capable of looking out for the best interests of the country.
If democrats had fought Trump – like republicans in 2009, on every issue of policy difference – the country would have been fine.
But you did not. You spent the past 4 years lobbing moral handgrenades.
Your nonsense over the Kislyak transcripts is the perfect examplar.
While you are wrong – what if you were right ?
The best you have is a sentence by Kislyak and an error of recollection by Flynn a month later.
In your world it is OK – not just to fire someone, but to bankrupt them, threaten their family and send them to jail because in a setup interveiw they did not recall that just before hanging up Kislyak might have said something that might have been in Obama’s EO.
To be clear, my GUESS is that Flynn knew exactly what Kislyak was talking about, and deliberately refused to address it. Flynn is not stupid. Stupid people to not get to be NSA.
At the same time Flynn legitimately felt it was honest to say Sanctions were NOT part of the discussion – because a discussion takes two people.
You can be critical of that, but if you are going to make that into a crime – all of Washington is headed for prison.
It is self evident over the past 4 years that you – the left are hypocrits. You do not give a crap about the country.
We are watching right now as you burn your own cities to the ground and try to Blame Trump for the mess you have made.
I do not think that the police are systemically racist. But if they are – that it NYC police, and Baltimore police, and portland, seattle, chicago, austin, LA, SF, … police. That is systemic racism in cities run by democrats for between 50-100 years.
And your blaming Trump and republicans ?
And you dare to call yourself honest ?
The democratic party treated blacks as slaves 200 years ago, and they do today.
‘I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years’
LBJ
And they are still your slaves since.
It is not republicans that have treated minorities like $h!t,
You have given your slaves pennies to buy them.
While denying them opportunity,
and directing them to hate everyone but you.
And now that they are mad and burning things down – you take no responsibility,
And blame others.
and you dare call yourself honest ?
“DOJ IG Horowitz found…”
Btb, why don’t you put down in writing what Horowitz did find and what his boundaries of investigation were. That way you won’t get so confused by the different words used to state the same things. Horowitz did not find what you think he found. What he found was bad.
Allan, yesterday I posted quotes with links on Horowitz’s report and appearance before a Senate committee and today a link to an article on his report. I’m sure you can google the topic and find other reporting on it.
Btb, what you neglected to mention were his limits on the investigation and what he did find that were abbreviated by those limitations. Those things weren’t pretty and indicated that one didn’t need to look too deep to find very disturbing things. .
Time limits were not Horowitz’s biggest problems.
He was confined to DOJ and FBI.
So he had no ability to look at Downer, Halper, and much of the nonsense that went on in the UK
He did SORT OF confirm that Mifsud did not appear to ever work for the FBI.
I strongly think that is incorrect. There are significant connections between Mifsud and SPECIFICALLY FBI.
Regardless, Horowitz looked for and did not find FBI links to MifSud.
Horowitz did not look at CIA or anything outside the FBI/DOJ, he did not look at the whitehouse, DNI,
He also did not look at Mueller at all, and his only dealings with Mueller were requests for evidence predating the Mueller inquiry in Mueller posession – which Horowitz did not get. Horowitz performed miracles getting Strzok/Page etc. texts that had been deleted.
Getting many that no one though could possibly be recovered.
Horowitz could not interview former FBI/DOJ unless they volunteered.
And Horowitz was required to defer to the judgement of those in DOJ/FBI Except when they clearly violated the law or established procedures.
And within those constraints what he found was damning.
Not only does it entirely undermine Mueller.
But it also makes clear that Mueller and Rosenstein COVERED UP an extraordinary amount of malfeasance.
Many things that were in the Horowitz report SHOULD have been in the Mueller report.
Their omission DAMs the Mueller report.
“Time limits were not Horowitz’s biggest problems.”
I agree but it wasn’t time limits I was talking about. I said “what you neglected to mention were his limits on the investigation and what he did find that were abbreviated by those limitations.”
I thought he had more tha enough time just like I think Durham had more than enough time to get the ball rolling so we would see a name or a couple linked with criminal charges to incentivize people to step forward. That we haven’t seen that means to me that we won’t and that the deep state will survive. I’m not really interested in revenge. I am interested in making things clear that we do not accept this type of thing from either side. I don’t think that is about to happen so the rule of law will remain distorted and the distortion will grow.
“Allan, yesterday I posted quotes with links on Horowitz’s report and appearance before a Senate committee and today a link to an article on his report. I’m sure you can google the topic and find other reporting on it.”
Yes and as is typical you are incapable of grasping that cherry picked quotes out of context and spun as you wish are not accurate.
Just as Committed to Dis Honest Discussion proved beyond any doubt that Kislyak said the words Sanction, GRU, and FSB at the tail end of one of his conversations with Flynn.
But that does NOT tell us what was DISCUSSED.
Horowitz has said REPEATEDLY that the parameters of an IG investigation:
Are limited to the specific agency being investigated,
Are limited to current members of that agency,
And that the IG may not draw inferences regarding Bias aside from those openly stated by those he interviews.
i.e. If Strzok says he is not biased. Horowitz must take him at his word.
Several times in his testimony Horowitz was asked about this, and confirmed that there was plenty to draw conclusions of Bias from using NORMAL standards – as opposed to those he had to follow.
IG investigations are deliberately conducted under rules that will nearly always defer to the actions of the agency and people being investigated. The fact that Horrowitz reached so many damning conclusions is exponentially damaging.
And I’ll add that I’m saying that Flynn lied to Pence (rather than, say, that Pence misunderstood Flynn) for a bunch of reasons, including:
* had it been a simple miscommunication, then — given Pence’s public statement about it — presumably Flynn would have immediately clarified to Pence and Pence would have corrected the public record,
* several people report Flynn misrepresenting the content of his calls with Kislyak (not just Pence, but also Spicer, etc.), and
* Pence and Trump both stated that Flynn lied to Pence:
— Trump in Dec. 2017: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
— Pence on CBS News in Dec. 2017: “[Margaret] Brennan asked the vice president on Thursday whether he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI by the time he was fired. ‘What I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me,’ Pence replied, ‘and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.'” (emphasis added)
Could it instead be that Pence’s and Trump’s claims that Flynn lied to Pence were both false? Sure. And if someone has evidence of that, I’ll change my mind.
Flynn didn’t say he lied to Pence, but in his resignation letter, he did say “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador,” without saying that he ever made an effort to correct that incomplete info, nor did Pence or Trump or anyone else in the Trump Admin. ever say that Flynn corrected it prior to resigning.
“And I’ll add that I’m saying that Flynn lied to Pence”
Needs to be Committed will find a reason to throw someone in jail with or without proof just because she wants to. The rule of law and innocent until proven guilty mean nothing to her. The whole reason Flynn was pushed towards bankruptcy and his kid threatened was because the FBI knew they didn’t have a case and couldn’t convict Flynn without him saying he was guilty of a crime he didn’t commit.
Whether he lied to Pence or not is not a crime and we will never know what games were played to create the outcome that we all read about. Very likely what we saw played out was the easiest way to manage the situation where the FBI created so much false doubt. In fact, no step along the way was criminal or wrong. As incoming NSA his discussion was legal and the investigation illegal. No one that has intelligently looked at the facts should believe Flynn was guilty of a crime unless they are horrid people that like to incarcerate people without proof and through illegal and unjust means. This post is written for just that type of person.
Take note that after more details came out Trump said he would rehire Flynn.
We do not know that Flynn lied to Pence.
We do know what Flynn said to Kislyak.
We do know that Flynn’s numerous statements about what he said to Kislyak are injcredibly consistent with the transcript – particularly since the FBI had the Transcript and Flynn only had his memory.
This was a criminal game played by the FBI and Mueller – one that even Ginsberg warned of.
You can not use 18 US 1001 into a weapon by which the FBI can prosecute people for minor errors of recollection when the FBI has the actual emails, transcripts, etc.
Every single Mueller/FBI falsification claim is an instance were Mueller/FBI had the records – there was no possibillity they could be deceived. The sole purpose of the interviews was to secure errors of recollection to prosecute.
This is pretty much the definition of abuse of power, or civil rights violations.
It is also improper.
18 US 1001 is only supposed to be used where the deliberately false statements of the person questioned mislead the FBI and waste investigative resources.
It is NEVER supposed to be a game where the investigator gets to question you until they can pinpoint some error of recollection to prosecute you for.
Every single Mueller false statement prosecution should be vacated and those involved in them shoudl be disbarred and precluded from public service for life.
“Could it instead be ”
That the deep state and the press setup Flynn and that Trump and Pence did not grasp what was going on.
Regardless, there is actually no “could it be instead”
We NOW have the transcript which the FBI has been hiding from everyone for years.
What is clear is that the DOJ/FBI Mueller and Van Grack have falsely accused Flynn of lying.
If Pence and Trump trusted the DOJ/FBI that was clearly a mistake.
One I hope they have learned from .
And AGAIN – when you accuse another of moral failure the burden falls on YOU.
In this case – Yates, Strzok, Mueller and Van Grack.
Finally, you keep trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.
The core problem is that the instruments of government – the DOJ/FBI IC were being used – first against Candidate Trump on the flimsiest of evidence, and subsequently against President Trump on no evidence at all.
You say Flynn lied to Pence.
Yet, what we have is a legitimate conversation with Kisylak.
If the DOJ/FBI was concerned – why didn’t they provide the transcript of the call to Pence ?
Instead they leaked it to the press.
You fixate on Pence’s remarks to the Sunday press.
Had the DOJ/FBI provided Pence with the transcript of the Call – Pence would have known EXACTLY what was said.
We already know that starting on Jan 5. 2017 all the actors in this were plotting to get Flynn fired.
You fixate on the fact that Trump and Pence did not handle a manufactured dilema well at the start of his presidency.
What is plain to many of the rest of us is that DOJ/FBI deliberately manufactured the dilema.
“Flynn didn’t say he lied to Pence, but in his resignation letter, he did say
“I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador,”
I have no idea whether that statement is correct – as does no one besides Pence and Flynn – and possibly neither of them.
But the entire mess was MANUFACTURED.
There was nothing wrong with the call.
There was no reason for DOJ/FBI to be involved.
There would have been no gotcha questions of Pence – but for the criminal leak of the call – which had to be by one of a very small number of people in the DOJ/FBI.
Specifically a crime was committed by one of the same people accusing Flynn of lying.
“without saying that he ever made an effort to correct that incomplete info”
Red herring.
Maybe Flynn did, maybe he didnt. You do not know.
You also presume it is relevant.
Why does Pence need “complete information” on the phone call ?
The entire purpose of an executive branch of government is to DELEGATE. If the president and vice president must know every detail of every utterance of the lowliest federal clerk – why do we need anymore than the president ?
Why is it important for Flynn to have told Pence that at the tail of once Call Kislyak said something that Flynn ignored ?
If Pence must know every detail of the call line by line – then why didn’t DOJ/FBI provide Pence with a transcript.
“nor did Pence or Trump or anyone else in the Trump Admin. ever say that Flynn corrected it prior to resigning.”
Again – another red herring.
You do not know what occured. Nor does it matter what occured.
You are off on a wild goose chase.
Only those like you with an Axe to grind think there is anything wrong with the call.
If Flynn did not brief Pence of the call line by line – that does not bother me.
If Flynn did not tell Pence every single thing Kislyak said that does not bother me.
If Flynn did not tell Pence about remarks by Kislyak that Flynn ignored – that does not bother me
The fact that someone in DOJ/FBI leaked a phone call with a foreign ambassador – that bothers me ALOT.
Whoever that was decided that WaPo needed to know more than Pence or Trump did.
Very few people had access to that call – it is near certain that the leaker is one of those trying to get Flynn fired.
That bothers me alot.
In your world it is a major problem that a brief of the VP by the NSA is less detailed than a verbatum transcipt.
In mine it is a major problem that actors within DOJ/FBI are playing games to pit the VP and NSA against each other and they are violating the espionage law to do so.
John,
I wrote: “Not only was there no evidence of spying, By the Book, but Allan’s statement “I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect” is simply ignorant,” and then I went on to explain why Allan’s statement was ignorant.
You quoted the first eight words, cutting it off there and ignoring the rest of the comment.
Apparently you still can’t deal with the evidence about the very straightforward way that the FBI could legally know that Flynn lied to Pence: namely, Pence made public statements about what Flynn had told him re: the Flynn-Kislyak calls, and Pence’s public statements about what Flynn told him re: the Flynn-Kislyak calls were contradicted by the transcripts.
For ex., Pence said on TV on 1/15/17: “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation [between Flynn and Kislyak on 12/29/17] … They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”
But the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts make clear that they DID discuss things “having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia” in their 12/29 conversation, such as:
Flynn: “So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that, that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it – don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?”
and
Kislyak: “One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned”
Both “they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country” and “the measures that have been announced today .. that now FSB and GRU … are sanctioned” are references to the sanctions Obama announced on 12/29 (for which the executive order had been signed on 12/28, effective at 12:01a.m. on 12/29 — Executive Order 13694 amending EO 13757). Those sanctions included the expulsion of 35 Russian intelligence operatives and also specifically listed the Russian intelligence agencies, FSB and GRU. And VP-Elect Pence referred to both of these kinds of sanctions: “the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”
Moreover, both Pence and Trump later stated that Flynn having lied to Pence was a key reason Flynn was fired in Feb. of 2017:
— Trump in Dec. 2017: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
— Pence on CBS News in Dec. 2017: “[Margaret] Brennan asked the vice president on Thursday whether he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI by the time he was fired. ‘What I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me,’ Pence replied, ‘and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.’” (emphasis added)
As for whether specific surveillance constitutes spying, that depends on the definition of “spying” (e.g., is it only illegal surveillance or does it also include legal surveillance?).
CTHD writes to John, “I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect” is simply ignorant,” and then I went on to explain why Allan’s statement was ignorant.”
The only problem is you muffed the discussion and got confused. You were imprecise and as John has already explained to you over and over again you can’t be imprecise when you are calling someone else a liar. That impreciseness makes you the liar and denies you credibility.
I already explained your confusion and your reliance on personal opinion rather than fact. You can rattle off many opinions explaining why you think what you think but you don’t know and worse for the most part you have been proven wrong. That must be awfully frustrating especially when your lack of proof makes you look ignorant.
I can’t help but note how you argue over the slightest details that could be misunderstood by almost anyone which obviously includes yourself and for that possible interpretation you wish to jail another person who has been an upstanding citizen and soldier. Unlike Flynn who did nothing wrong except to trust people from the FBI, the FBI started an improper interrogation and looked for a way to entrap their target. Since then those that you trust have lied and conspired to the present day knowing what they are doing is wrong. Yet you wish to forgive all those people that intentionally lied yet incarcerate the one person who was honorable.
You flunk the ethics and morality portion of this blog.
Excellent. Concise.
I wish I had written that.
Thanks John.
“John,”
And yet you are replying to allan.
“I wrote: “Not only was there no evidence of spying, By the Book, but Allan’s statement “I don’t know how the FBI would legally know that the incomming NSA was lying to the VP-Elect” is simply ignorant,” and then I went on to explain why Allan’s statement was ignorant.
You quoted the first eight words, cutting it off there and ignoring the rest of the comment.”
God forbid you should write a non-convoluted sentence.
You say there was no evidence of spying – yet the FBI had the transcript of Flynn’s call with Kislyak.
That is certainly spying. There is also ample evidence that the FBI was spying on Flynn – not Kislyak.
Kislyak was NOT in washington at the time. He was not on a line that the FBI would normally monitor.
Regardless, it is still self evidently spying.
But for the FBI spying on Flynn – they would not have any reason to conclude Flynn lied to Pence – they would not know what Flynn said to Kislyak. They would not know that Flynn said to Pence.
As to Pence’s statements to the press. Again why is it DOJ’s job to fact check the VP ?
They certainly did not Fact Check Susan Rice.
Whether you like it or not it is crystal clear something unusual and disreptuable was going on.
You talked about forrests and trees before – but you fixate badly on trees and pretend there is no forest.
Flynn was spied on by the FBI – or there would be no issue here.
There was clearly nothing wrong with anything Flynn told Kislyak.
And as noted Van Grack lied in is charging statement.
On Jan 4 – after this call the FBI concluded Flynn had done no wrong and as required by DOJ/FBI procedures was closing the investigation.
But for Strzok’s request to keep an investigation that no longer had sufficient credible predicate open the investigation would have been closed and there could have been no investigative interveiw of Flynn.
Starting on Jan 5 the usual suspects – including Obama and Biden plotted how to avoid telling Flynn about XFH.
They settled on getting him fired.
Someone – clearly one of “the usual suspects” – people with access to this transcript – likely not more than 6 people leaked details of the conversation.
But for that Leak Pence never would have been asked about the call – because no one would have known about it.
“The Usual suspects”, then used Pence’s statement which was a MILDLY inaccurate reflection of the actual conversation as a wedge between Flynn and Pence.
You presume that Flynn must have lied to Pence. That is about the least likely possibility.
Flynn did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak.
If you claim that Flynn must brief Pence on every word that was said – even those that Flynn ignored, then why have an NSA – just have VP Pence talk directly to Kislyak.
Clearly a briefing is a summary – not a transcript – otherwise Pence can just read the transcript. Oh But the FBI did not provide that – why ?
Because if they told Pence/Trump about the transcript they would ask questions.
FBI was spying on Flynn and they would have had to lie to Trump or Pence about that.
It is not even analysis – “the usual suspects” openly admitted they sought to catch Flynn in a manufactured lie so they could get in fired or prosecuted.
It is self evident that they entire mess was a SETUP from the begining, and the only mistake on any Trump parties was not realizing they were being entrapped.
Is that what an incoming administration should expect ? That FBI/DOJ are spying on them seeking to entrap them and disempower them ?
If you have a disagreement over policy – make that out loud in public.
This type of behavior is despicable.
And yet you support these people and hate their victims.
It is not the job of DOJ/FBI to fact check the president or VP. That is what the media is before.
It is not their job to tee up questions for the media.
It is not their job to create wedges between the NSA and VP.
It is not their job to set anyone up to be fired/prosecuted.
It is not their job to lie.
CTDHD – the DOJ/FBI had already decided to set Flynn up for bogus lies BEFORE Pence’s statement.
There is a record of this in their own words.
Further Pences reply to a press question is NOT evidence that Flynn lied to Pence.
It is merely evidence that Pences response to a question that only was asked because of criminal behavior by the FBI might be mildly inaccurate – Sanctions were not discussed. In fact NOTHING that had actually occured was discussed ever.
Flynn’s discussion with Kislyak were entirely about what Obama MIGHT do and how he hoped Russia would respond.
Flynn NEVER mentioned anything Obama DID, only Kislyak mentioned actions that occured on the day of the 29th call.
You keep micro parsing and keep presuming that there is only one explanation when there are many,
and ignoring that the entitre mess was a setup.
John, you say “If Pence spoke publicly – in sufficient detail for the FBI to glean this – then you can cite Pence’s public remarks,”
FFS, I did “cite Pence’s public remarks,” quoting him (in fact, I’ve now quoted it to you more than once), giving the date of his statement, and noting that he made the statement on TV!
Do you need a link? Here’s a link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-january-15-2017-pence-manchin-gingrich/
“Why would Pence’s public remarks about a classified communication be specific enough for the FBI to know what you are claiming.”
Did you even read the quote from Pence? And did you read the evidence that I then quoted from the transcripts to show that what Pence said Flynn told him about the Flynn-Kislyak calls was contradicted by the transcripts of the Flynn-Kislyak calls?
We know that was enough for the FBI because there’s testimony under oath about it before Congress from more than one person, as well as 302s from multiple people about it (e.g., Mary McCord).
Your transcript DOES NOT confirm your claims.
Below is the entire transcript section regarding Flynn.
Your opinion of what one sentence by Kislyak meant DOES NOT constitute a conversation.
I am not sure who you are accusing of lying – Pence or Flynn.
But if Flynn was speaking into Pence’s ear at the time of the interview, and Pence was merely repeating Flynn’s words.
They would not be a lie.
This would be ab example of an NSA Lying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGXy_yhOfNg
JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about it was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response?
MIKE PENCE: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.
JOHN DICKERSON: So did they ever have a conversation about sanctions ever on those days or any other day?
MIKE PENCE: They did not have a discussion contemporaneous with U.S. actions on–
JOHN DICKERSON: But what about after–
MIKE PENCE: –my conversation with General Flynn. Well, look. General Flynn has been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security advisor–
JOHN DICKERSON: Absolutely.
MIKE PENCE: –should do. But what I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.
JOHN DICKERSON: But that still leaves open the possibility that there might have been other conversations about the sanctions.
MIKE PENCE: I don’t believe there were more conversations.
JOHN DICKERSON: Okay. Okay. Okay. Let’s move on. Okay. Got it–
MIKE PENCE: I can confirm those elements were not a part of that discussion.
“Did you even read the quote from Pence?”
I read the Kislyak Transcript.
I read the face the nation transcript.
“And did you read the evidence that I then quoted from the transcripts”
I do not care what you quoted you are not a reliable source.
” to show that what Pence said Flynn told him about the Flynn-Kislyak calls was contradicted by the transcripts of the Flynn-Kislyak calls?”
Reread the Transcript – you are reading alot into it that is not actually there.
Pence says very little about specifically what Flynn told him.
Pence makes general statement that they did not discuss. First he does not source that to Flynn, and next that statement is accurate.
A discussion is not one person talking at the other.
A denial about discussion of specific topics is NOT refuted by your interpretation of remarks by only one party that were not responded to.
You, the left, the media do this all the time. You microparse words in the pretense that even the hint of differences constitutes evidence of crimes.
I have no problems with what Flynn said to Kislyak.
I have no problems with what Pence said to Dickerson.
I have huge problems with wiretapping the incoming NSA.
BTW we KNOW that Flynn not Kislyak was wiretapped because the transcript names Flynn.
If this was an NSA/CIA/FBI tap of Kislyak Flynn’s identity would be masked.
I have a huge problem with the outgoing administration trying to entrap the incoming NSA.
I have a huge problem with their leaking classified information to do so.
I have a huge problem with the FBI conducting an investigative interview when the DOJ/FBI rules require the investigation to be closed.
I have a huge problem with the FBI conducting an interview on a classified matter without going through the whitehouse FSA.
Flynn is not permitted to determine on his own that he is free to tall Strzok about a classified conversation.
I have a huge problem with prosecuting anyone for purportedly lying based on these facts.
I have a huge problem with DOJ/FBI fact checking the Vice President.
“We know that was enough”
We do ?
“for the FBI because there’s testimony under oath about it before Congress from more than one person”
Then provide links to that – do not tell me that something that you refuse to clearly identify make less accurately report says.
“as well as 302s from multiple people about it (e.g., Mary McCord).”
Provide them.
Thus far all the testimony and 302’s have been damning – to Mueller and the FBI.
I would remind you AGAIN – you have repeatly proven to be an untrustworthy source.
Your Pence cite DOES NOT say – either narrowly or in context what you claim.
Pence says very little of what Flynn actually told him.
And Pence’s summary of the conversation is sufficiently accurate for a one sentence response that only a left wing nut would call it a lie.
You continue to ignore the fact that saying someone lied is an accusation of deliberate moral misconduct.
The standard of proof is HIGH and the burden is on YOU.
I cited Rice’s face the nation comments as an example of an actual lie.
I do not know if Rice was lying or being lied to.
But HRC told the egyptian ambassador the night of the attack – before Rice spoke that the attack was a planned Al Queda attack.
The press was lied to. This is not a question of lack fo precision. It is not a question of who said what.
HRC KNEW – because she said it was an AL Queda attack HERSELF.
Rice either KNEW or was lied to.
BTW neither of those constitutes a crime and the DOJ/FBI did not investigate or fact check Rice.
And Clinton’s conversation was not leaked to the press, it came out as a result of a protracted hard fought FOIA request, at the order of the courts.
Actually, John, Margot Cleveland is wrong, as I pointed out to Squeeky when she introduced that same link in a comment of hers over 2 months ago.
Part of my comments to Squeeky at the time:
“[Margot Cleveland] refers to Executive Order 13757, but seems not to have read the actual EO and instead relied on how it was ‘summarized in a White House press release.’ Had she read the actual EO, perhaps she’d have noticed that Executive Order 13757 amends Executive Order 13694, and to fully understand the former, she needs to read the latter as well — and to read the actual EOs and not just press releases about them, since the Statement of Offense refers to the actual EO and not the press release.”
“That author is talking about it as if the expulsion/persona non grata actions and the sanctions are non-intersecting sets, when the former is a subset of the latter.”
In fact, it was reading Cleveland’s column in June that lead me to read both EOs in full (and also some of the other texts they reference, including the Annexes). Cleveland makes no mention at all of EO 13694. Nothing, zero, zip, nada. She claims “the expulsions were not part of Executive Order 13757 and thus were not “U.S. Sanctions” as defined in the Flynn Statement of Offense,” not understanding that the expulsions ARE part of “‘U.S. Sanctions’ as defined in the Flynn Statement of Offense,” because the Statement of Offense explicitly references EO 13757 which in turn explicitly *amends* EO 13694, so you have to look at the amended document to fully understand the meaning.
That you don’t understand this suggests that you likely still haven’t read both in full yourself, so you weren’t in a position to recognize the mistakes in Cleveland’s argument.
“You read the words – but you jump to conclusions that are not supported by the FACTS.”
On the contrary, *she* is the one who didn’t read ALL of the relevant words, so she doesn’t know ALL of the relevant facts. Nor, apparently, did/do you.
“You are confusing Expulsions with Sanctions, and you are confusing What Kislyak said with What Flynn said.”
Nope. You project confusion onto me because you don’t know what you’re talking about. The expulsions are a **subset** of the sanctions. And I explicitly put Flynn’s and Kislyak’s names in front of what each said. Lying about me “confusing” them is (a) dishonest and (b) counterproductive.
“He stated that Kislyak may have mentioned Sanctions, but that He – Flynn, did not discuss sanctions.”
But the transcripts show that Flynn DID discuss the sanctions. Again: the expulsions were **part of** the sanctions.
Tell the truth: have YOU read the two EOs in full yourself?
“the actual record shows not that Flynn lied, but that Yates, Lied, that Mueller Lied, that Van Grack lied, and that YOU are lying now.”
You don’t quote any lies from any of us. To quote you: “You still do nto grasp that you are not a credible source and what you say is not trusted because you say it.”
“The only person who uses the word Sanctions – is Kisylak, I beleive he uses it a single time, at the end of a call, in a remark that Flynn does not respond to.”
You remember wrong, and apparently you’re too lazy to look it up. It’s not at the end of the call; it’s ~2/3s of the way through. Moreover, one can discuss sanctions without using the word “sanctions,” just as one can discuss food without using the word “food.” According to your mistaken reasoning, if I talk about BBQ chicken, baked potatoes, salad and dessert, I’m not talking about food because I didn’t use the word “food.” Flynn introduced the issue of the expulsions, and no matter how much you deny it, those were part of the sanctions **as defined by the combination of EO 13757 with EO 13694**.
“you can CLAIM that Kislyak was refering to Obama’s EO of Dec. 29…”
But I didn’t claim that. My actual claim was that the quotes from Flynn and Kislyak were both “references to the sanctions Obama announced on 12/29.” There was a press conference about the sanctions (including the expulsions) on 12/29, there was a press release, there were news reports, … and I was referring to those public announcements, not to the EO itself. It was breaking news several hours before Flynn and Kislyak spoke, and Kislyak’s statement about “the measures that have been announced today” re: “now FSB and GRU … are sanctioned” was a clear reference to the sanctions that had been announced that day (12/29). You keep saying “Precision matters,” but you can’t bother to attend to relevant details yourself.
“Kislyak MAYBE refering to the EO, which Flynn MAY OR MAY NOT have known about”
Flynn absolutely knew about the sanctions, including the expulsions. How do we know? Because the SCO got copies of emails and texts between him and the Transition Team about it (e.g., “At 2:07 p.m., a Transition Team member texted Flynn a link to a New York Times article about the sanctions”), and because K.T. McFarland (Flynn’s incoming deputy) stated that she and Flynn discussed the sanctions before Flynn spoke to Kislyak; she wanted Flynn to be aware of the Transition team’s concerns about them. And apparently Flynn told the SCO in one of his November, 2017 interviews that he “recalled that he chose not to communicate with Kislyak about the sanctions until he had heard from the team at Mar-a-Lago. …. Flynn then spoke with McFarland for almost 20 minutes to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions. On that call, McFarland and Flynn discussed the sanctions, including their potential impact on the incoming Trump Administration’s foreign policy goals. McFarland and Flynn also discussed that Transition Team members in Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation. They both understood that Flynn would relay a message to Kislyak in hopes of making sure the situation would not get out of hand. Immediately after speaking with McFarland, Flynn called and spoke with Kislyak.” (quoting the Mueller Report). AFAIK, he 302s from Flynn’s November interviews haven’t been made public.
“Van Grack yold the court … that Sanctions came up AGAIN in a later call, and they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT.”
That’s false again. Part of the Dec. 31 call:
Kislyak: “Uh, you know I have a small message to pass to you from Moscow and uh, probably you have heard about the decision taken by Moscow about action and counter-action.”
Flynn: “yeah, yeah well I appreciate it, you know, on our phone call the other day, you know, I, I, appreciate the steps that uh your president has taken. I think that it is was wise.”
Kislyak: “I, I just wanted to tell you that our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow”
later:
Kislyak: “And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions have targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect.”
FLYNN: “yeah, yeah”
Kislyak: “and and with all our rights to responds we have decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost of elections and, and its very deplorable. So, so I just wanted to let you know that our conversation was taken with weight.”
The references to “action(s)” and “counter-action” is a discussion of the sanctions, referring back to Flynn’s desire that Russia not escalate in response. And to fully understand this, you also have to pay attention to the fact that in between the two phone calls, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced that Russia was going to respond to the sanctions in kind, but then 2 hours later Putin released a statement that “Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time.” (quoting Mueller again) Have you ever bothered to read all of this?
“Are you ready to admit that YOU ERRED ?”
You’re the one making erroneous claims, not me.
“Actually, John, Margot Cleveland is wrong, as I pointed out to Squeeky when she introduced that same link in a comment of hers over 2 months ago.”
Nope – facts, logic, reason, you should try it.
It is absolutely self evident that Van Grack’s statement of charges is specific to the Obama EO’s – and mostly to the FIRST EO.
It is absolutely self evident that Flynn never discussed anything in the EO’s.
With an enormous amount of straining you can claim that Kislyak MIGHT have raised something from the EO’s,
But Flynn did not bite.
Again Van Grack is prosecuting a crime – Specificity and precision are MANDITORY.
The EO’s The transcripts and Van Grack’s charging statement are all that is needed.
I beleive you linked the EO’s. You should actually READ THEM.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber2_eo.pdf
The operative part of Executive Order 13757 is as follows”
“Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:”
I have read the whole thing serveral times. I am sure it pissed off the Russians, But it does not expel anyone.
Obama did order 35 Russian Diplomats out – but not via either of these EO’s.
These EO’s seize assests.
Executive Order 13757, Only names 4 individuals. Not 35, and it allows Treasury to seize their US Assets.
There are several entities identified – none of which is a Russian Diplomat, those entities had their US assets seized.
You deceptively edited the Transcript – the full transcript makes your distortion clear.
You did the same with Pence’s public statement.
You keep claiming to be honest and then engaging in deception.
Why should you be trusted ?
EO 13694 does NOT expel anyone. It restricts their entry into the US. That is not the same thing.
As noted before EO 13757 names 4 people – not 35, and I do not beleive any of them were in the US at the time.
Diplomatic expulsions do NOT require new EO’s
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_eo.pdf
I will address your claim that Flynn knew about the EO separately – as it is irrelevant.
The core here – and the LIE that Van Grack Told was that Flynn tried to undermine the EO’s.
Flynn did not even TALK about the EO’s. Maybe just maybe Kislyak did ONCE – but Flynn ignored him.
If Flynn did not talk about the EO’s or anything in them, he could not have interfered with them.
That is the most trivial disproof of your nonsense claim.
But it is NOT the only one.
Nothing Flynn ever said “undermined” anything that Obama did.
Flynn offered absolutely nothing to Kislyak, he merely pleaded for the sake of working together on common problems – specifically Terrorism, that Russia stick to tit for tat responses and not escalate. ‘
The only means on the planet you can claim Flynn interfered was if your expectation was that the Obama EO’s were deliberately intended to provoke the Russians to a more violent response.
If you wish to claim that Obama’s EO’s deliberately sought to bring the US to the brink of War with Russia
I will be happy to agree that Flynn thwarted Obama’s wishes THANK GOD!!!!!
Are you ready to admit that YOU ERRED ?
You keep playing games – you keep claiming that documents you refer to say things they do not.
You keep pretending Flynn said and did things he did not.
CHECKMATE!
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity
I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners. Using this new authority, I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.
In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information.
*****
THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes, and is declaring “persona non grata” 35 Russian intelligence operatives.
****
Finally, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, to help network defenders in the United States and abroad identify, detect, and disrupt Russia’s global campaign of malicious cyber activities.
Do I need to explain this too you Further ?
Even Obama distinguishes between the EO;s and the expulsions.
Please change your Nom de plume to
Committed to Dis Honest Discussions.
AGAIN,
If you are going to charge someone with a crime you MUST get EVERYTHING right.
We do not make people fellon’s by misrepresenting the facts and the law.
Van Grack ERRED.
He erred on something he had YEARS to get right.
He erred on something that he had all documents etc, readily available to him.
And then you told the court under penalty of law that everything he claimed was correct.
You, the left, Van Grack, claim that Flynned erred in an entrapment interview opperating solely off recollection.
And yet two things are true.
The first is that even under suboptimal circumstances – Flynn was correct.
The second is that Van Grack was NOT!
If we are going to jail people for lying – then lets start with prosecutors who lie to courts.
There was no “plan” to set up Flynn by the FBI. That was one of multiple options discussed in a meeting prior to the interview – as per notes taken – which ended with a “better just play it straight” (or words to that effect). Perhaps John has been in meetings with team members where comments were made not intended for consumption by his client or competitors but concluded with a fully ethical decision and resulting action.
As noted many times now, IG Horowitz found there was no spying or partisan actions by the Crossfire team and it was begun on legitimate concerns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html
“There was no “plan” to set up Flynn by the FBI. That was one of multiple options discussed in a meeting prior to the interview – as per notes taken – which ended with a “better just play it straight” (or words to that effect). Perhaps John has been in meetings with team members where comments were made not intended for consumption by his client or competitors but concluded with a fully ethical decision and resulting action.”
Government is not the same as a private actor. I do not debate with my “team members” various approaches to get the National Security advisor of the united States fired or prosecuted.
These discussions constitute a criminal conspiracy – it is a crime to entrap someone. It is a crime to plot to entrap someone.
You say that after debating a bunch of unsavory options they decided to “play it straight”.
And yet they did not.
They had no legitimate criminal investigation at a predicate to interview Flynn. And yet they did – that is not straight. ‘
They were obligated to inform Flynn about XFH – again something that they noted at the begining of their discussions and that is a requirement for “playing it straight”
They pretty much did by the numbers the “not straight” approach that the plotted ahead.
They did not warn Flynn. They asked questions about classified communications – without going through the WhiteHouse FSA to confirm that they had sufficient clearance and need to know to communicate with Flynn on those issues.
They repeately decided that Flynn had not lied and then they accused him of lying to get him fired and later prosecuted him for lying when he had not, and further they charged him with actions that were neither crimes, nor things that Flynn had actually done.
If this is your idea of “fully ethical” – you should NEVER hold a position that requires ethical decision making.
What is self evident – and unsurprising is that you like all leftists have no idea what morality and ethics mean.
“As noted many times now, IG Horowitz found there was no spying”
False – Horowitz confirmed improper surveilance – that is called spying.
Further the spying is self evident.
With reference to “spying” Horowitz found no evidence that Halper, Mifsud, or Turk were acting as part of FBI or DOJ,
Horowitz was unable to investigate outside of FBI or DOJ.
“or partisan actions by the Crossfire team ”
False, What Horowitz found was that no one in the FBI admitted to bias.
“and it was begun on legitimate concerns.”
False, abd the wrong standard. Investigations are not justified by “legitimate concerns”,
They are justified by reasonable suspicion of a crime.
The initial whisper down the lane version of the downer/papdoulis exhchange met the requirements for reasonable suspicion,
That predication evaporated when Downer and Papadoulis were interviewed.
The investigation would have had to be terminated at that point but for the appearance of the Steele Dossier.
But by Mid January 2017 even that was thoroughly discredited and no reasonable suspicion for continued investigation existed.
Words matter.
There is no “legitimate concerns” standard for an investigation.
The actual standard is “reasonable suspicion of a crime”.
And the standard for searches, seizures – spying, is “probable cause” – there was NEVER a time in which XFH or Mueller had probable cause. That too is a Horowitz finding.
The loss of reasonable suspicion in mid january makes the whole SC investigation – a violation of 18 US 1983.
That is the violation of a persons civil rights under color of authority.
“note the Pence remarks you cite were 10 days AFTER the Obama Biden strzok, rice, comey meeting to setup Flynn.”
There was no meeting “to setup Flynn.” There was only a meeting where he was discussed.
The point is that Pence’s remarks on 1/15 contributed to the decision to interview Flynn, which occurred on 1/24.
“So you STILL have a major timeline problem.”
You don’t say what it is. Are you going to?
:you also have a huge problem because Comey, McGhan, Yates, Strzok have all testified DIFFERENTLY on this.”
Again, to quote you: “You still do nto grasp that you are not a credible source and what you say is not trusted because you say it.” Just as you told me “If Pence spoke publicly – in sufficient detail for the FBI to glean this – then you can cite Pence’s public remarks,” and I gave you both a quote and a link, if Comey’s, McGhan’s, Yates’, and Strzok’s testimony are all different, then present quotes and links.
Yates testified in May 2017 about her conversations with McGahn. You can find her testimony yourself.
McGahn provided a memo to Mueller about those conversations in 2018.
Even TPM thinks their is a conflict between those.
McGahn claims that Yates said that Flynn MAY have lied to Pence.
According to McGahn Yates did NOT say that Flynn did lie.
Further McGahn says that Yates told him Flynn was NOT under investigation at the time.
Yates testimony disputes both of these.
The FACTS strengthen Mcgahn’s account regarding lying to Pence – absent knowing exactly what was said we can not know more.
If Yates knows exactly what was said – we have a far more serious problem as the DOJ was spying on the whitehouse.
if Yate’s knowledge is based on Pence’s press account – May is far more approriate – as did would be wrong.
As to whether Flynn was under investigation – that is really messy – as he clearly should not have been,
and if Yates knew he was then she also knew he should not have been.
And I have not addresses Strzok, and Comey – who Yates is now saying “went Rogue”.
Which either means she is trying to divorce herself from a criminal conspiracy she was part of, or she was out of the loop and as surprised as the rest of us.
I think Sally Yates is bat $h!t crazy. I think she has warped views of the constitution and the law.
But so far I think she is actually moral – if wrong.
Regardless, either she knew what Comey was up to then and is lying because she knows it was wrong.
Or she did not know, and grasps now it was wrong.
Both ways IT WAS WRONG
“The reason for the FBI interview wasn’t that Flynn had talked to Kislyak. They interviewed him because Pence and Spicer and Priebus had all stated that Flynn told them he haadn’t spoken to Kislyak about the sanctions Obama imposed,”
And has has been beaten to death Flynn did NOT talk about the sanctions – YOU Cited the relevant EO’s.
READ THEM, then READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. There is nothing covered in the EO’s in the transcripts – beyond huge generalizations like both the transcipts and the EO’s have to do with RUSSIA.
“which was false,”
Which you have repeatedly been proven wrong on.
“and Flynn’s lying to them raised questions about whether Flynn was compromised.”
God not the idiot Sally Yates claim.
How is Flynn compromised ? The Russians are going to get the US NSA to give away the nuclear codes, because you beleive he mistated what was said in a conversation that Flynn and Kislyak BOTH know that BOTH sides are recording ?
How do the Russians know that Flynn purportedly misrepresented the calls to Pence ? And why would they care ?
How stupid are left wing nuts.
“If the incoming NSA is lying to the VP-Elect about communications with a key adversary,”
Except that he was not. This was an idiotic fabrication of Yates and company. One that you dingbats continue to hold onto.
“it’s wholly appropriate for the FBI to look into it”
Actually no it is not.
The FBI is not supposed to be running arround spying on the whitehouse.
Let me ask you another question. You say Flynn lied to a bunch of people in the white house.
How did the FBI know that ?
There are only two ways:
They were spying on these people.
They were conducting an illegal investigation and questioning these people.
“And just to be clear: there’s only 1 president at a time”
True
“and it’s inappropriate for an incoming NSA — someone not yet in office, working on behalf of someone not yet in office — to ask an adversary to do anything contrary to current U.S. policy (including the UN vote).”
Actually false. It happens all the time. It is WHY we have a transition.
“Not only that, but Flynn chose *not* to talk to Kislyak about the “difficult topic” of Russia having interfered in our election and how unacceptable that was.”
So you get to decide what Flynn must and must not talk about ?
John,
You’re a hypocrite, telling me things like “you are not entitled to give orders,” when you have no compunction about giving me orders, and you complain about ad hom while posting it yourself.
You falsely and egotistically proclaim “you do not mostly ignore my comments,” when a simple text search on your name in the comments on this column indicates that you’ve posted over 100 comments on this column, and I’ve only responded to a handful of them and don’t read many of the others.
And you’re deeply ignorant about the relevant details of this case.
You tell me to to read things that I’ve not only read but clearly understand better than you. Have you read both EOs in their entirety? I have. You seem to have relied on their titles and not bothered to read the texts. If you’d bothered to read the texts, you’d have found that the combination of EOs does, in fact, address aliens who are complicit in specific malicious cyber-enabled activities and were identified by a specific subset of Cabinet members, a category that includes the 35 Russian intelligence operatives who were expelled, and when Flynn raised the expulsions, he was talking about sanctions as defined by the EOs. You tell me to read the transcripts, when I f’g quoted from them, and you’re unwilling to either accept the quotes or to check them.
You ask stupid questions like “HEre is the purported discussion ‘of the UN Vote’. Please tell me what is wrong with it ?…,” when you’re quoting the wrong part (the relevant parts are most of what you omitted on pp. 4-5 of the 12/23 call transcript, including — but not limited to — the sentences with the word “vote” as a clue to you), and when the relevant exchange was partly on 12/22, for which the call transcript wasn’t declassified, so neither of us can quote from it. And you totally gloss over the fact that the legal issue — false statements — isn’t what Flynn said to Kislyak, but what Flynn later claimed to the FBI about the conversations in the 1/24/17 interview.
You should know by now the specific false statements that Flynn pleaded guilty to. FFS, have you ever read the Statement of the Offense and charging document?
You tell me things like “You are making a very specific claim. It is only true if it is literally true i.e. if the filed statements specifically say ‘under penalty of perjury,’” when both the SoO and Flynn’s personal declaration were both signed using the exact phrase “under penalty of perjury” — which I know because I’ve actually read them, which is why I used that phrase when I raised the issue in the first place, and which you would know if you’d ever bothered to read them, but where you instead assume that my claim was false — again because you’re too lazy to actually read them.
You ask ignorant questions like “How do the Russians know that Flynn purportedly misrepresented the calls to Pence ?,” when Russia monitors our media and Pence and Spicer both made public statements about what Flynn had told them about his conversations with Kislyak, and where what they claimed Flynn told them was clearly contrary to the transcripts of what Flynn and Kislyak actually discussed. How do you not know that at this late date?
Over and over again, you pretend to have considered all of the possibilities, while not only ignoring possibilities but ignoring facts. Such as your comment “You say Flynn lied to a bunch of people in the white house. How did the FBI know that ? There are only two ways: They were spying on these people. They were conducting an illegal investigation and questioning these people.” No, ignoramus, there aren’t only two ways. Here’s a third way, which is what actually happened: Pence and others made public statements about it! And this is discussed in the Mueller Report, and it’s also discussed in plenty of news reports, and you can read those public statements and sometimes see video of them (e.g., Pence on TV on 1/15/17: “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation [with Kislyak on 12/29/17] … They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia”). Pence and Trump both stated that Flynn was fired in part for lying to Pence. And what did Flynn lie to Pence about? About Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak. Flynn even touched on this in his resignation letter.
But you apparently know none of this.
And I could add many more examples of your claims demonstrating factual ignorance or mistaken reasoning. But I simply don’t want to waste my time correcting all of your mistakes and educating you about relevant details that you apparently don’t know, especially when you’re snidely pretending to understand it better than I do while demonstrating your ignorance in every other sentence, and when your responses grow exponentially, with several comments on average in response to one of mine. No doubt you’ll reply with more garbage.
CTHD, John seems to think the “hard work” in discussing an issue is the number of words one produces. No doubt he’s the leader in that dubious achievement which is like judging a painting by how much paint is on the canvas.
“CTHD, John seems to think the “hard work” in discussing an issue is the number of words one produces. No doubt he’s the leader in that dubious achievement which is like judging a painting by how much paint is on the canvas.”
Back to mind reading i see.
The size of my response is proportionate to the number of errors you make.
If you want smaller replies – make fewer mistakes.
No Bias at all
03/04/2016
Page – God Trump is loathsome human.
Strzok – Yet he many win.
Strzok – Good for Hillary.
Page – It is.
Strzok – Would he be a worse president than Cruz?
Page –Trump?, yes I think so
Strzok – I’m not sure.
Strzok – Omg he’s an idiot.
Page – He’s awful
Strzok – America will get what the voting public deserves.
Page – That’s what I’m afraid of.
—
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page – I know
Page – Also did you hear him make a comment about the size of his d**k earlier? This man cannot be president.
When have I given orders ?
Noting you are posting ad hominem is not giving you an order.
You can post bad arguments all you want – I am exposing them.
I am not stopping them.
You do not seem to know what ad hominem is.
When you make false and defamatory claims – calling you immoral is NOT ad hominem.
You have ALREADY made the argument personal.
All fallacies are efforts to derail an argument from facts, logic reason,
If you do not engage in ad hominem or defamation – you will not have to deal with counter attacks.
You seem to beleive that it is OK for you to insult others, call then racists, bigots, hateful hating haters, but it is not OK for anyone to defend themselves or to call you out as a racist, bigoted, hateful hating hater.
Was it hypocracy when Jesus attacked the scribes and pharacies for their hypocracy ?
Once again you are NOT Commited To Honest Discussion.
I will be perfectly happy to have a discussion with you or anyone else that sticks to facts, logic, reason.
That does not involve personal attacks.
But I doubt that is in your ability.
You can not help but personally attack people who disagree with you.
Read your own posts.
You can not help but make EVERYTHING personal.
You think being proven wrong – is a personal attack on you.
You live in a glass house and throw stones all the time.
“You falsely and egotistically”
more ad hominem – but then you have personalize the entire debate.
You have enven falaciously shifted the debate fro the actual topic to who is hypocritical, who is giving orders, who is egotistical, who is …
You do not want to debate the facts – of anything.
You do not want to debate the facts about your own ad hominem
You do not even want to debate the facts about your own defamation of others.
You want to lob moral hand grenades and then run away from the fallout.
You say you have not read my comments – that is your right.
It is also your right to respond without having read them.
But it is also idiocy.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
JS Mill
If you are only listening to the echo chamber, if you are trapped in your bubble – then you can not know what you are talking about.
You can not know the quality of your own arguments if you do not listen to criticism – particularly the criticism of those who disagree most virulently.
And if you do not listen to the arguments of those most vigorously at odds with you – you know little of the world or the truth.
Truth is tested in the crucible – not “safe spaces”.
As to the rest of your claims. If you have searched how many comments I have made – you have a problem.
You have accused me of being egotistical – I am not fixated on me – but the evidence indicates you are.
Nor do I care about you – I am focused on your bad arguments.
Make better arguments and you will have less criticism.
Making honest arguments would be better still.
“And I could add many more examples of your claims demonstrating factual ignorance or mistaken reasoning.
But I simply don’t want to waste my time correcting all of your mistakes and educating you about relevant details that you apparently don’t know, especially when you’re snidely pretending to understand it better than I do while demonstrating your ignorance in every other sentence, and when your responses grow exponentially, with several comments on average in response to one of mine. No doubt you’ll reply with more garbage.”
You say this nonsense – but it is self evidently contradictory.
You can not waste your time – making a good argument.
But you waste massive amounts of your time engaging in ad hominem.
Telling me I am wrong is meaningless – it is a complete waste of your time – which you pretend is precious.
I do not need correcting. or educated – talk about ego.
Make a credible counter argument – anything else is a WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME,
as well as hypocracy and egotism.
“Make a credible counter argument”
I did.
SMH that you’ve responded to everything I wrote except all of the evidence of your errors of fact and reasoning.
““Make a credible counter argument”
I did.”
Nope – you rarely make actual arguments.
I will cede that you actually made an argument regarding Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak,
But the argument was flawed – rather than cut and pasting bits of transcripts, you could have linked the actual transcripts.
Where it would have been obvious that The word sanctions was used only by Kislyak, that its use was ambiguous, and that it occured at the tail of a call, and that Flynn did not respond, and that they were never refered to again in subsequent calls.
And that is NOT what you, Van Grack, or Mueller claimed.
And unlike Flynn -you had the benefit of actual transcripts.
“SMH that you’ve responded to everything I wrote except all of the evidence of your errors of fact and reasoning.”
Nope, I have responded to EVERYTHING you wrote.
No errors of fact or reasoning.
You failed on the no spying claim.
You failed on the sanctions claim.
You want to microparse everyone else to try to manufacture evidence of error or lying, but your won remarks do not hold up to the same standards.
If you want to accuse others of lying – you had damn well better dot your eyes and cross your T’s – and you have failed.
Because when you make a moral accusation – the benefit of all doubt goes tot he accused.
Me: “You falsely and egotistically proclaim ‘you do not mostly ignore my comments,’ when a simple text search on your name in the comments on this column indicates that you’ve posted over 100 comments on this column, and I’ve only responded to a handful of them and don’t read many of the others.”
You: “more ad hominem”
No, John, actually what I wrote isn’t ad hom. Me saying “egotistically” is insulting, but it’s not ad hom. Not all insults are ad hom, only those where “you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself” (https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem, emphasis added). If you’re going to keep referring to ad hom, learn what it is and isn’t, and why many insults aren’t ad hom: https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
I noted your egotism, but I didn’t use your being egotistical to counter your false claim “you do not mostly ignore my comments.” I used evidence to counter your false claim: you’ve posted over 100 comments on this column, and I’ve only responded to a handful of them and don’t read many of the others.
“All fallacies are efforts to derail an argument from facts, logic reason,”
Then don’t draw on fallacies yourself (like your false dichotomy “How did the FBI know that ? There are only two ways …”) and don’t falsely accuse me of a fallacy like ad hom when what I wrote doesn’t actually constitute ad hom.
Me: “You falsely and egotistically proclaim ‘you do not mostly ignore my comments,’ when a simple text search on your name in the comments on this column indicates that you’ve posted over 100 comments on this column, and I’ve only responded to a handful of them and don’t read many of the others.”
You: “more ad hominem”
No, John, actually what I wrote isn’t ad hom.
———————–
Ad hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It is not limited to insults.
“Me saying “egotistically” is insulting, but it’s not ad hom.
Is it insulting ? maybe,
Is it – and the rest of your response “Ad Hominum” – yes. Please read your own link.
“Not all insults are ad hom,”
In an argument most if not all are. But more important, arguments that are not insults are also ad hominem.
All fallicies are efforts to distract from the actual argument.
Ad Hominem is distracting from the argument by shifting to the the arguer.
That is quite clearly what you have done – a long diatribe about ego, and who posted how much.
None of that is responsive to ANY argument – except one that has jumped “to the person” – aka ad hominem.
“your false claim “you do not mostly ignore my comments.” ”
are you really going to make this into a statistics competition ?
Is it correct to say you mostly ignore my comments – if you respond to 10% ? 25% ?
Is it reasonable to infer that you read more than you answer ?
The fact is you are engaged – are you really going to dispute that ?
Do you really want to quibble over the precise number of reads and replies constitutes NOT mostly ignoring ?
“I used evidence to counter your false claim: you’ve posted over 100 comments on this column”
And how many of those were YOUR posts ?
I post on other boards – because you do not read or respond to those – am I obviously wrong ?
Your making a tedious argument over precision over something that has nothing to do with precision.
You are both engaged – and you are mostly diverting from the actual argument – as here.
You are fixated on my Ego – while ducking the actual issues.
You claim to ignore me – I do not care, but it is not relevant – whether true or not – it is a fallacu
Ad Hominem – shifting the argument from the subject to the arguer.
“and I’ve only responded to a handful of them”
Badly, and mostly with fallacies.
Stick to the actual issues.
“and don’t read many of the others.”
We only have your word for that.
Regardless, who cares ? You are not obligated to read anything.
But you are obviously more fixated on my posts than you admit.
If you want to make the argument about me – have at it.
Your not doing that well arguing your fallacy either.
“All fallacies are efforts to derail an argument from facts, logic reason,”
“Then don’t draw on fallacies yourself (like your false dichotomy ”
“How did the FBI know that ? There are only two ways …”
All Dichotomies are not false.
So how did the FBI know – you still have not made that case.
There is not a lot of daylight between Pence’s statement and the transcripts.
Pence’s statement is a fairly accurate summary of Flynn’s call.
Further as you want to fixate on sanctions – how did the FBI know that Flynn purportedly lied to Pence.
If you are trying to create a lie by microparsing Pence – why isn;t the approriate conclusion that Pence’s summary is slightly imprecise.
I would further note that Many people have testified to this – Yates, Comey, Strzok, McGahn – they do not agree.
So again – how did the FBI know Flynn was lying ?
This is of particular concern – as it is a leap and microparsing to conclude that Pence’s statement is wrong.
Let me give you an example of an actual lie.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,”
Susan Rice.
We now know that HRC knew this as an Al Queda planned attack WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, and that the WH knew that by morning.
Regardless – that is what a lie looks like. A blatantly false statement – one that requires no parsing.