-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Traitor Trump
- Thread starter Fat Bruno
- Start date
Dutch Lane said:
Once again, you are wrong. In fact, dead wrong. Flynn was set up.
1. "According to new information included in the sentencing documents for Michael Flynn, the entire interview that is the basis for his ‘perjury’ charge was a trap, deliberately set up by the FBI and designed to trick the former national security advisor."
2. "Andrew McCabe specifically suggested Flynn not have an attorney present during the session, and the two FBI agents who spoke with him deliberately withheld the fact that his statements would have penalties so they could ensure Flynn was “relaxed.”
3. "The sentencing memo states that shortly after noon on Jan. 24, just four days into the new administration, McCabe called Flynn and said he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” to go over Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition period. McCabe admitted he urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer."
4. " The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says."
5. "And, the whole session was carefully planned. The memo shows officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
6. "Interestingly, the FBI 302 report cited in the [sentencing] memo was dated Aug. 22, 2017, which is nearly seven months after the interview."
7. Disgraced and fired FBI agent Peter Strynzok was one of the agents conducting the interview.
https://conservativedailypost.com/flynn-302-information-shows-fbi-set-up-a-perjury-trap/
8. "As TGP previously reported in February 2018, according to Mike Cernovich, fired and corrupt former FBI Head Andrew McCabe altered far left FBI investigator Peter Strzok’s 302 notes on his interview with General Flynn. And then McCabe destroyed the evidence." https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/analysis-the-probability-general-flynn-lied-to-fbi-is-remote-he-must-have-been-coerced-into-bogus-plea/
https://conservativedailypost.com/flynn-302-information-shows-fbi-set-up-a-perjury-trap/
9. The U.S. had a transcript of the telephone conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Why did the FBI need to interview Flynn? Why did McCabe discourage Flynn was involving a White House lawyer. Answer: to set him up for perjury trap. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/12/nolte-fbis-andrew-mccabe-exposed-dishonest-michael-flynn-setup/
10. Flynn's statements didn't impede any investigation. Again, US intel and FBI already knew what he had discussed with the Russian investigator.
11. The 2 FBI agents said after the interview that they thought Flynn had been truthful. "But, according to Comey, in their initial reports, the FBI agents did not believe Flynn had lied to them."
12. Here's what Comey said about the set up: "Wallace asked Comey: “You look at this White House now, and it’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the Stateroom. How did that happen?”
“I sent them,” Comey replied, to audience laughter.
“Something we’ve — I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration,” he confessed.
“The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years,” he continued to audience applause.
“And in both those administrations, there was a process. And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there’d be discussions and approvals and it would be there.
“And I thought, it’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over,” the disgraced former director said.
“And so we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we’re sending a couple of guys over. Hope you’ll talk to them,” he continued.
“He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room in the Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to,” said Comey — knowing full well that, based on post-interview 302 reports that neither of those FBI agents, one of whom was Peter Strzok, believed that Flynn lied about anything."
Dutch, you stuff is really weak and wrong. Like I said, the bulk of what you are saying in this thread is wrong. You should be embarrassed.
Argh! Yes you were accurate and correct in your assessment that the Mueller investigation was indeed focused on Russian interference in the election and was not a direct investigation of the Trump campaign.PlayerRep said:
PR quoted only part of the Rosenstein order appointing Mueller as special counsel obviously to fit his subjective narrative. When reading his selective quote it does indeed appear that according to prong (i) Mueller was to investigate the Trump campaign.
However to understand the context of the order and not PR’s spin on it, one needs to read the entire document, so here it is:
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation
confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20,
2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government
and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald
Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the
investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the
Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from
the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
Date May 17, 2017
Rod J. Rosenstein
Acting Attorney General
Did you notice how the caption of the order references Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as does the first paragraph and but does not reference the the Trump campaign until prong (i)? Why do you think PR left that language out of his post? Maybe to mislead the reader and validate his spin? Or maybe it was just too much for him type the entire order?
At best PR is intellectually lazy or at worst intellectually dishonest, you decide. :thumb:
Dutch Lane said:
Dutch, you must be just plain stupid. I quoted the key part of the order. Again, the first prong is investigating the Trump campaign. You just admitted that Trump is mentioned in the very first prong of the order. As you ought to know, a heading is not evidence of what a document or order is about. You have to read the whole document.
Even argh would agree with me on what the order said.
Your last para is way out of line. None of that is accurate or true. I can run circles around you intellectually any day and all day, just as I have done in this thread.
Hope I meet you in person someday, so I can tell you exact what I think of you in person.
Declassifying the bullshit which has gone on for over the past two years will shed light on the Hillary/DNC/Deep State's attempts to keep Trump out of the White House. I think this will be like a sledge hammer blow right between the eyes. :shock: Let the prosecutions begin. Lock 'em all up.
PlayerRep said:
PR, really? You wanna dance? Then lets dance.
https://youtu.be/YAdAPAGIztg?t=9
tourist said:
Do you really believe that Barr will now release things like the entire un-redacted Page fisa application? I would love for that to happen but i doubt it will. I’m afraid that he will only release parts that when taken out of context from the entire document (see PR above) will allow him to put his spin on the narrative like he did with his 4 page summary of the 448 page Mueller report. I am for complete and total transparency when it comes to our government. What about you? Thanks for playing. :thumb:
Dutch Lane said:
Barr's 4 page letter was accurate and wasn't spin. He stated the principal conclusions of the Mueller report. You need to get off the Dem talking points. Almost nothing you have said on this subject is accurate. What do you think Barr said that wasn't accurate. The guts of it were quotes or paraphrases from the Mueller report.
Whatever will put these conspirators behind bars for life, or put a rope around their necks, I am for. The last two and a half years have been nothing short of a failed coup. Like all failed coup conspirators, world wide, they should pay the ultimate price, IMO. A slap on the wrist will only enable them for another try and encourage others to get bolder and go farther. No half measures.
tourist said:
yeah! we should do the same to that pathetic douche bag who endlessly tried to get obama thrown out of the whitehouse by making all sorts of bullshit claims about where obama was born. i remember that's clown's endless lies about having 'proof' obama wasn't born in hawaii, etc... and some innocent saps believed him! put 'em all down, is what i say!
PlayerRep said:
No Dem talking points PR, just reading comprehension. Here's one for you, Barr did indeed take Mueller's words out of context to suggest Trump had no motive to obstruct justice:
From Barr's letter to congress:
"In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ['the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,'] and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president' intent with respect to obstruction."
From Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 157:
"Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The inquiry to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, [the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.] But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events -- such as advance notice of WikkiLeaks' release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family."
PR, in explaining why he was declaring Trump cleared of obstructing justice, Barr cherry picked and cited this sentence fragment about how the evidence Mueller had gathered did not prove there had been any conspiracy with Russia for Trump to cover up. This use of Mueller's words taken out of context by Barr turned Mueller's meaning upside down. The brief excerpt came from a list of other possible reasons Trump had to corruptly impede the investigation, which Barr did not mention, kind of like when you failed to quote the entire Rosenstein letter in order to support your subjective narrative that the Russian investigation was directed at Trump and his campaign when in fact it was initially directed at Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
You might want to at least skim the Muller report and Barr's letter, which you will recall Mueller objected to in his own letter to Barr. Swing away big guy I have a couple more examples for you if you strike out. So go ahead and try go yard on me, or what did you say run circle around me all day, so start running. :thumb:
Barr omitted the reason Mueller made his investigation so factually thorough.
From Barr's letter to Congress:
"After making a ['thorough factual investigation'] into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
From the Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 2:
"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other then the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted [a thorough factual investigation] in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
Barr failed to explain to Congress in his letter that Mueller was leaving open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Trump leaves office, could still look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Trump. That rationale which came from the view of the OLC that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose that immunity conflicted with Barr's spin to rush to announce Mueller had cleared Trump. Which he did not. Swing away :thumb:
From Barr's letter to Congress:
"After making a ['thorough factual investigation'] into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
From the Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 2:
"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other then the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted [a thorough factual investigation] in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
Barr failed to explain to Congress in his letter that Mueller was leaving open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Trump leaves office, could still look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Trump. That rationale which came from the view of the OLC that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose that immunity conflicted with Barr's spin to rush to announce Mueller had cleared Trump. Which he did not. Swing away :thumb:
Barr portrayed Mueller as encountering "difficult issues" in reaching a decision on obstruction.
From Barr's letter to Congress:
"The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion--one way or the other--as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report set outs evidence on both sides of the question an leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ['difficult issues'] of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ['while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime it does not exonerate him.'"] (Remember how Trump and his people starting claiming total exoneration anyway?)
From Mueller's Report, Volume II, Page 2:
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents [difficult issues] that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, [while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also not exonerate him.]
Volume II, Page 8:
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents [difficult issues] that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, [while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."]
Barr purposely did not explain to Congress why Mueller had demurred from making any prosecutorial judgment on obstruction beyond a cryptic reference to what he said Mueller described as "difficult issues" of law and fact. Barr spun it as if these unspecified issues prevented Mueller from making a call one way or the other. Mueller made clear that if the facts did indeed exonerated Trump, he would have said so. :thumb:
From Barr's letter to Congress:
"The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion--one way or the other--as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report set outs evidence on both sides of the question an leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ['difficult issues'] of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ['while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime it does not exonerate him.'"] (Remember how Trump and his people starting claiming total exoneration anyway?)
From Mueller's Report, Volume II, Page 2:
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents [difficult issues] that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, [while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also not exonerate him.]
Volume II, Page 8:
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents [difficult issues] that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, [while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."]
Barr purposely did not explain to Congress why Mueller had demurred from making any prosecutorial judgment on obstruction beyond a cryptic reference to what he said Mueller described as "difficult issues" of law and fact. Barr spun it as if these unspecified issues prevented Mueller from making a call one way or the other. Mueller made clear that if the facts did indeed exonerated Trump, he would have said so. :thumb:
Dutch Lane said:
I don't agree. You are misreading and mis-analyzing the letter. You haven't done your homework on this subject. I hope you put more effort and better analysis into your law practice, or else you must be a shitty lawyer. You also appear to lack brainpower. Middle of the pack or below in your law school class, I assume.
The sentence you quoted is not cherry picked. It is exactly what Mueller said, and it is true.
You like to write long-winded posts and include longer quotes, even though they have little or nothing to do with the topic and don't prove anything, let alone what you'd like them to prove. This post of yours is a good example.
Dutch Lane said:
Mueller told Barr that he didn't not conclude that Trump objected justice because of the policy to not indict a sitting president.
Barr promptly released virtually all of the Mueller report. The letter was never intended as a summary. It was intended to provide a glimpse of the main conclusions of Mueller, and it did.
Again, please do some analysis and original thinking. Stop with the Dem talking points.
Dutch Lane said:
Barr's letter did not say Mueller exonerated Trump. What are you talking about?
Many commentators believe Mueller was out of bounds for saying his didn't exonerate Trump. A prosecutor is never charged with exonerating someone. A prosecutor is charged with determining whether someone should be charged, or not. They don't exonerate. Do you really not even know or understand that?
Mueller did not determine that obstruction of justice was appropriate. Barr and Rosenstein did determine that an obstruction charge was not appropriate. They are/were the no. 1 and 2 people in the DOJ. Mueller was subordinate to and worked for them.
