(04-22-2020, 08:22 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I love how the first sentence of each article are 100% factually correct, but are used to set opposing narratives about what happened.
Yeah, though the second article tries to achieve its goal by leaving factual correctness aside along the line. As for the first sentence, Mueller did not find *sufficient* evidence, not exactly *no* evidence. I know, I know. Petty. But still.
Sure this committee's findings don't seem to matter much to anyone. The same committe did determine that Russia actually targeted election systems in all 50 states. Ever since I saw that I wonder how not every second thread's topic here is "OMG OMG!!!! Russia targets our election systems everyhere! God help us!"
(04-22-2020, 09:06 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, though the second article tries to achieve its goal by leaving factual correctness aside along the line. As for the first sentence, Mueller did not find *sufficient* evidence, not exactly *no* evidence. I know, I know. Petty. But still.
Sure this committee's findings don't seem to matter much to anyone. The same committe did determine that Russia actually targeted election systems in all 50 states. Ever since I saw that I wonder how not every second thread's topic here is "OMG OMG!!!! Russia targets our election systems everyhere! God help us!"
Russia worked to influence the election, but Mueller said no American was part of the collusion. That's why the way it's worded is correct.
(04-22-2020, 06:24 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Russia worked to influence the election, but Mueller said no American was part of the collusion. That's why the way it's worded is correct.
I don't really think that's what Mueller said... I might admit that this is a matter of interpretation perhaps.
To underline my stance though, the Muller report did find that Manafort gave polling data to a Russian spy, it did state that Kremlin operatives gave the campaign some sort of preview of the Hillary email distribution timetable, also there's the whole Roger Stone/Wikileags saga and this Trump Tower/dirt saga, so I couldn't go as far as to say "Mueller found no American was part of the collusion". It rather stated that there was not sufficient evidence to establish actual coordination and support for these Russian efforts. Which, to me, is not the same.
There are other things like Flynn and Papadopulos and that Mueller did not delve into counterintelligence matters in the first place... and there is some kind of evidence, just not sufficient to indict. In case of Don jr. specifically, only the assumption of utter naivité saved him from that. He did not "willfully" coordinate, and the offered dirt might maybe not be a "thing of value", it's these kinds of considerations that lead to de-facto exonerations, not the lack of any evidence. Imho, just imho.
(04-22-2020, 09:06 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, though the second article tries to achieve its goal by leaving factual correctness aside along the line. As for the first sentence, Mueller did not find *sufficient* evidence, not exactly *no* evidence. I know, I know. Petty. But still.
Sure this committee's findings don't seem to matter much to anyone. The same committe did determine that Russia actually targeted election systems in all 50 states. Ever since I saw that I wonder how not every second thread's topic here is "OMG OMG!!!! Russia targets our election systems everyhere! God help us!"
Actually, I don't think that is "petty" at all.
Add to "no evidence" other statements like the claim that a Democratic "theory" that Trump was a "Russian secret agent" had been debunked. I cannot recall anyone who claimed Trump could be anything more than an unwitting tool. There is still plenty of evidence for that, though easily covered by Presidential prerogative. It's as if the Federalist article were specifically targeting confirmation bias. Ignored here was that the Mueller investigation was primarily triggered by the multiple contacts between Russians and Trumpsters and the ongoing Trumpster lying about those contacts. That's not all "debunked" and ok now.
It's the collective force of all such petty changes that, for the properly receptive audience, enables them to continue believing there was a complete exoneration of wrongdoing in an investigation whose real rationale was simply to take down the voters choice--something these bipartisan reports manifestly do not establish.
(04-22-2020, 07:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't really think that's what Mueller said... I might admit that this is a matter of interpretation perhaps.
To underline my stance though, the Muller report did find that Manafort gave polling data to a Russian spy, it did state that Kremlin operatives gave the campaign some sort of preview of the Hillary email distribution timetable, also there's the whole Roger Stone/Wikileags saga and this Trump Tower/dirt saga, so I couldn't go as far as to say "Mueller found no American was part of the collusion". It rather stated that there was not sufficient evidence to establish actual coordination and support for these Russian efforts. Which, to me, is not the same.
There are other things like Flynn and Papadopulos and that Mueller did not delve into counterintelligence matters in the first place... and there is some kind of evidence, just not sufficient to indict. In case of Don jr. specifically, only the assumption of utter naivité saved him from that. He did not "willfully" coordinate, and the offered dirt might maybe not be a "thing of value", it's these kinds of considerations that lead to de-facto exonerations, not the lack of any evidence. Imho, just imho.
My only disagreement with this is that I don't think there is much "interpretation" going on.
You have a lot of guys who state their receptiveness to Russian help and act on it opportunistically.
What saved them is the difficulty proving "coordination" among people acting on instinct and impulse without any central control.
It's not like the Russian ambassador called Flynn about ending sanctions and Flynn reminded him that OBama was still president and hung up. It's not like Don jr replied "Dirt on Hillary, sorry, that's illegal."
Seems like the Russians were MUCH MORE careful about where these contacts could wrong than the Trumpsters.
The DOJ, though not the prosecutors themselves (at least 1 withdrew from the case and asked the court to make note that), made motions to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn, telling judges that they cannot prove that Michael Flynn lied, even though Michael Flynn twice admitted in court that he lied and explicitly stated that he was not entrapped by the FBI.
The DOJ argued that, even if Michael Flynn did lie, they are not sure if there was a legitimate reason to have the investigation, so nothing he could have lied about would have affected an FBI investigation.
This would set a terrible precedent where, in order to avoid the poor optics of pardoning a clearly guilty person (which is well within their power to do), the president can have their DOJ claim that they aren't sure there was ever a legitimate reason to investigate someone and drop all charges even after the person admits multiple times that they committed a crime.
(05-07-2020, 04:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess this is a relevant place to post this:
The DOJ, though not the prosecutors themselves (at least 1 withdrew from the case and asked the court to make note that), made motions to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn, telling judges that they cannot prove that Michael Flynn lied, even though Michael Flynn twice admitted in court that he lied and explicitly stated that he was not entrapped by the FBI.
The DOJ argued that, even if Michael Flynn did lie, they are not sure if there was a legitimate reason to have the investigation, so nothing he could have lied about would have affected an FBI investigation.
This would set a terrible precedent where, in order to avoid the poor optics of pardoning a clearly guilty person (which is well within their power to do), the president can have their DOJ claim that they aren't sure there was ever a legitimate reason to investigate someone and drop all charges even after the person admits multiple times that they committed a crime.
Which,as people smarter than me have said, would be really good for lots of "entrapped" people if the DOJ ever held the same standard for people who weren't close personal friends of the POTUS.
Corruption. Pure and simple.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-07-2020, 04:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess this is a relevant place to post this:
The DOJ, though not the prosecutors themselves (at least 1 withdrew from the case and asked the court to make note that), made motions to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn, telling judges that they cannot prove that Michael Flynn lied, even though Michael Flynn twice admitted in court that he lied and explicitly stated that he was not entrapped by the FBI.
The DOJ argued that, even if Michael Flynn did lie, they are not sure if there was a legitimate reason to have the investigation, so nothing he could have lied about would have affected an FBI investigation.
This would set a terrible precedent where, in order to avoid the poor optics of pardoning a clearly guilty person (which is well within their power to do), the president can have their DOJ claim that they aren't sure there was ever a legitimate reason to investigate someone and drop all charges even after the person admits multiple times that they committed a crime.
Our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. The current administration is tearing apart the rule of law.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-07-2020, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or we can ignore the FBI's intention was illegal entrapment. Tomato-Tamato
Or it wasn't illegal entrapment at all.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
It’s pretty clear who actually read the entire note and who saw half of one line.
#FLYNN docs just unsealed, including handwritten notes 1/24/2017 day of Flynn FBI interview. Transcript: “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Read transcript notes, copy original just filed. @CBSNewspic.twitter.com/8oqUok8i7m
The goal was never stated that they wanted to get him to lie. It clearly states that they will give him a chance to be open about his contacts and if he chooses to lie then they will leave it up to the DOJ to decide how to move forward.
(05-07-2020, 08:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey I'm an "Any means necessary" guy. Just didn't know you were as well.
Entrapment means causing someone to do something criminal they otherwise would not have. If it is entrapment to ask someone questions they might lie to then every single interview of a suspect in every investigation there is counts as entrapment.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-07-2020, 08:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Entrapment means causing someone to do something criminal they otherwise would not have. If it is entrapment to ask someone questions they might lie to then every single interview of a suspect in every investigation there is counts as entrapment.
As I said I'm an "Any means necessary" guy. If you find no fault with what the FBI did in this situation, then I damn sure don't.
Yesterday was a BIG day for Justice in the USA. Congratulations to General Flynn, and many others. I do believe there is MUCH more to come! Dirty Cops and Crooked Politicians do not go well together!
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
