That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Guilty conscience? Nope. Concern? Possibly. I really hope Flynn has flipped and his testimony can end this national nightmare but I doubt it. I doubt the later not the former.Paingod wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:18 am One might think you're suggesting the Orange Mancheeto has a guilty conscience.
That would require a minimal level of humanity, though.
That's another thing that gets me. Let's pretend that Flynn gave Mueller enough to drag Trump out of the Oval in handcuffs... Trump's supporters aren't going to take that lying down. There would be riots.Kurth wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:20 amOf course, it's possible that he's getting such an easy go of it because the info he has is blockbuster good, but I'm not sure how we have any way of knowing that at this point.
He hasn't actually pled guilty yet, right? Once we have the plea we should know a lot more.Kurth wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:20 amI share your doubts here. I'd feel a lot better if Flynn were cutting a plea deal AND being charged with something a little more substantive.msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:03 amBut that's the thing that gets me. The National Security Advisor planning a kidnapping while in office is a huge friggin deal. Would Mueller let that go entirely just to flip on somebody higher up the chain?Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:55 amDoubtful. The dude was just caught planning a freaking kidnapping while national security advisor. He's been on the payroll of some shady motherfuckers. He was in contact with Russians making deals to lessen sanctions. The guy was central to a lot, and the fact that he's only getting charged with lying means that he's singing.msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:53 am Should we be getting our hopes up already? What are the chances that he is only charged with lying to the FBI because that's all that Mueller can prove at this point?
Of course, it's possible that he's getting such an easy go of it because the info he has is blockbuster good, but I'm not sure how we have any way of knowing that at this point.
Does Flynn's guilty plea to today's charge preclude further charges down the line?msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:03 amBut that's the thing that gets me. The National Security Advisor planning a kidnapping while in office is a huge friggin deal. Would Mueller let that go entirely just to flip on somebody higher up the chain?Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:55 amDoubtful. The dude was just caught planning a freaking kidnapping while national security advisor. He's been on the payroll of some shady motherfuckers. He was in contact with Russians making deals to lessen sanctions. The guy was central to a lot, and the fact that he's only getting charged with lying means that he's singing.msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:53 am Should we be getting our hopes up already? What are the chances that he is only charged with lying to the FBI because that's all that Mueller can prove at this point?
This has been something I've been thinking about - who has authority to offer immunity. Is it Mueller himself or does he have to go to Rosenstein?Holman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:36 amDoes Flynn's guilty plea to today's charge preclude further charges down the line?msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:03 amBut that's the thing that gets me. The National Security Advisor planning a kidnapping while in office is a huge friggin deal. Would Mueller let that go entirely just to flip on somebody higher up the chain?Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:55 amDoubtful. The dude was just caught planning a freaking kidnapping while national security advisor. He's been on the payroll of some shady motherfuckers. He was in contact with Russians making deals to lessen sanctions. The guy was central to a lot, and the fact that he's only getting charged with lying means that he's singing.msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:53 am Should we be getting our hopes up already? What are the chances that he is only charged with lying to the FBI because that's all that Mueller can prove at this point?
If necessary, can't the kidnapping indictment simply come later?
In theory, I believe. However, I am sure that Flynn's cooperation agreement is conditioned on their not being further charges. And I doubt that Flynn would ever have considered a plea agreement that included the kidnapping charge, given the prison term that would likely result in.Holman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:36 amDoes Flynn's guilty plea to today's charge preclude further charges down the line?msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:03 amBut that's the thing that gets me. The National Security Advisor planning a kidnapping while in office is a huge friggin deal. Would Mueller let that go entirely just to flip on somebody higher up the chain?Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:55 amDoubtful. The dude was just caught planning a freaking kidnapping while national security advisor. He's been on the payroll of some shady motherfuckers. He was in contact with Russians making deals to lessen sanctions. The guy was central to a lot, and the fact that he's only getting charged with lying means that he's singing.msteelers wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:53 am Should we be getting our hopes up already? What are the chances that he is only charged with lying to the FBI because that's all that Mueller can prove at this point?
If necessary, can't the kidnapping indictment simply come later?
MAGA
Whoever is filling in for Brian Kilmeade this morning on the radio is ALL IN on Clinton. He briefly mentioned Flynn, said it’s a big nothing-burger, and said Mueller is wasting his time when he should be investigating the Clintons, the “Bonnie and Clyde” of our era.Octavious wrote:And yet Fox News has a headline about Clinton. LOL. And the White House is considering this a win.
I'm absolutely certain each of our polarized factions is completely riveted by the actions of the opposite faction. They're glued to their phones so tightly that they'll walk into light posts. They'll howl in rage about the injustice, on both sides. They'll rant. They'll rave. They'll have eye fatigue from staring at their phones late into the night. They'll need prescriptions for anti-depressants.malchior wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:24 pmThis is the country we live in right now. Rule by sociopaths. If this doesn't wake up the populace then we are doomed.
You laugh but I see the riots from Fox News viewers if everything we suspect is true and Trump goes down for it because they won't have clue one that it was even happening to their orange idol and won't accept it in the least. One way or another our nation is very likely not to survive with even the little pieces we have left holding us together. Millions on both sides consuming only the "news" the reinforces their own views while demonizing the other side while we approach challenge the magnitude of "did the sitting President commit treason during his campaign". There is nothing good to come of this for a very very long time. If ever. The civil war removed slavery - eventually - but it did not really remove its stain. I need to find something good that could come from this other than removal of the malignant force that is Trump because there are way too many other malignant forces still around that are just like him and will appeal to the same tribal notions. I admit that I am terrified for our nation either way.Octavious wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:18 pm And yet Fox News has a headline about Clinton. LOL. And the White House is considering this a win.
Yes, this.Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:47 pmYou laugh but I see the riots from Fox News viewers if everything we suspect is true and Trump goes down for it because they won't have clue one that it was even happening to their orange idol and won't accept it in the least. One way or another our nation is very likely not to survive with even the little pieces we have left holding us together. Millions on both sides consuming only the "news" the reinforces their own views while demonizing the other side while we approach challenge the magnitude of "did the sitting President commit treason during his campaign". There is nothing good to come of this for a very very long time. If ever. The civil war removed slavery - eventually - but it did not really remove its stain. I need to find something good that could come from this other than removal of the malignant force that is Trump because there are way too many other malignant forces still around that are just like him and will appeal to the same tribal notions. I admit that I am terrified for our nation either way.Octavious wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:18 pm And yet Fox News has a headline about Clinton. LOL. And the White House is considering this a win.
Thread winner!
I honestly wonder if our country is going to splinter. As a people we are at the point where the tribes can't even agree on basic governing principles. I'm at the point where, like Octavious, I wake up angry every single day. I don't know if I have anything in common with Republican voters and that includes people in my extended family.Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:47 pmYou laugh but I see the riots from Fox News viewers if everything we suspect is true and Trump goes down for it because they won't have clue one that it was even happening to their orange idol and won't accept it in the least. One way or another our nation is very likely not to survive with even the little pieces we have left holding us together. Millions on both sides consuming only the "news" the reinforces their own views while demonizing the other side while we approach challenge the magnitude of "did the sitting President commit treason during his campaign". There is nothing good to come of this for a very very long time. If ever. The civil war removed slavery - eventually - but it did not really remove its stain. I need to find something good that could come from this other than removal of the malignant force that is Trump because there are way too many other malignant forces still around that are just like him and will appeal to the same tribal notions. I admit that I am terrified for our nation either way.Octavious wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:18 pm And yet Fox News has a headline about Clinton. LOL. And the White House is considering this a win.
Same here. I can forgive the ones that voted for Trump and admit they fucked up but the ones that think he is doing a good job...I do not want to even associate with you anymore.gbasden wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:52 pmI honestly wonder if our country is going to splinter. As a people we are at the point where the tribes can't even agree on basic governing principles. I'm at the point where, like Octavious, I wake up angry every single day. I don't know if I have anything in common with Republican voters and that includes people in my extended family.Remus West wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:47 pmYou laugh but I see the riots from Fox News viewers if everything we suspect is true and Trump goes down for it because they won't have clue one that it was even happening to their orange idol and won't accept it in the least. One way or another our nation is very likely not to survive with even the little pieces we have left holding us together. Millions on both sides consuming only the "news" the reinforces their own views while demonizing the other side while we approach challenge the magnitude of "did the sitting President commit treason during his campaign". There is nothing good to come of this for a very very long time. If ever. The civil war removed slavery - eventually - but it did not really remove its stain. I need to find something good that could come from this other than removal of the malignant force that is Trump because there are way too many other malignant forces still around that are just like him and will appeal to the same tribal notions. I admit that I am terrified for our nation either way.Octavious wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:18 pm And yet Fox News has a headline about Clinton. LOL. And the White House is considering this a win.
Based on what's public in the plea, it is premature, BUT:Grifman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:28 pm So what am I missing here? Yes, Flynn talked to the Russians and lied about it, but there's nothing here about collusion with Russia on the election. And I'm not aware that him talking to the Russians after the election but before Trump took office was illegal. Was it? I realize that the Trump admin probably would not want knowledge of him talking to Russians about making nice to them to be public, but I'm not seeing what everyone is getting all excited about here. Am I missing something?
More here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... act-russia
Celebration seems premature at this point.
Yeah, but the Logan Act has never been successfully prosecuted and I doubt anyone would try to hang their hat on that. I certainly want to hang a potential indictment of a president on that. And again, there is absolutely no evidence of campaign collusion. None whatsoever. I believe that if there was, something would have leaked out somewhere along the way. Stuff like that just doesn't stay hidden in the current environment.El Guapo wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:51 pm Based on what's public in the plea, it is premature, BUT:
(1) As the article says the conversations themselves might have been illegal (Logan Act violations), since it was a private citizen undermining the foreign policy of a sitting President;
(2) Per ABC News (and as noted in the Bloomberg article), Flynn is apparently prepared to testify that Trump told him to make contact with the Russians during the campaign;
(3) In light of everything else that's come to light thus far about the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia, that Trump / Kushner directed Flynn to call Russia to ask them to delay a response to the U.S. sanctions *which were in retaliation for Russia meddling in the presidential campaign*, and Russia did so...is not a great look; and
(4) That Trump and his people have continuously lied about all this (saying that they had no idea that Flynn spoke with Kislyak about sanctions, when they obviously did know), suggests that the explanations for all this are not super innocent.
Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. To be a crime under Section 1001, a statement must be material — but the federal courts have generally supported the government's position that the question is not whether a false statement actually did influence the government, but whether it was the sort of false statement that could have influenced the government.
Hence, the government's chickenshit false statement trap works — even though the government agents set it up from the start. Now, however weak or strong their evidence is of the issue they are investigating, they've got you on a Section 1001 charge — a federal felony. In effect, they are manufacturing felonies in the course of investigations.