Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, there will soon be 53 depositions for you to read through, the raw data of Schiff's inquiry.  Please let me know if its better than the Steele dossier.

Many years ago, the late, great Bob Parry, a liberal guy, saw through the whole Flynn case and called it what it was, a perjury trap.

Do you know what that is?  When the Feds don't have anything on you, they ask you about something they know is true but has no relation to the case they are pursuing.

For instance, they suspect you of cyber hacking, but have no evidence.  But they do a background check and find out you cheated on your taxes,  So they ask you:  have you ever cheated on your taxes.  Of course you say no. You are nailed.

They had Flynn with an NSA intercept.  But please show me where anyone has ever been prosecuted for the Logan Act? Especially with no malignant intent. (Nixon was a different matter since that was close to treason.)

The Flynn case shows just how there was no there there.  And it all owed to the irresponsible printing of the Steele Dossier by Buzzfeed and the endless recycling of this through the so called liberal blogosphere. What angers me is that there were so many ways to criticize Trump for so many things he did.  And they chose this.  I don't understand it. 

The JFK case is not a conspiracy, but this is? That is the kind of culture we live in.🤮

I disagree with your take on the Michael Flynn case, Jim.

Let's recall that Flynn lied to the FBI in January of 2017 about his December 29, 2016 phone call to Kislyak-- first denying that it happened, then denying that he discussed the Obama administration sanctions against Russia, imposed on December 29, 2016 in retaliation for the Russian interference in our 2016 elections.

Flynn and his highly respected lawyers then entered guilty pleas to the accurate charges of making false and fraudulent statements to the FBI.

The earlier claim that Flynn "did not recall" the December 29, 2016 phone call was later debunked by Flynn's own statements to the court.

And why was the December Flynn-Kislyak phone call so important?

Because Flynn well knew that Russia had hacked the 2016 election to put Trump in the White House, and he was trying to undermine the impact of the Obama administration sanctions against Russia imposed on December 29th. *

Flynn was directly undermining an appropriate U.S. government response to a hostile foreign power that had directly subverted our democracy-- in coordination with Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign staff.

It is now an established fact that Russia aggressively and systematically  interfered in our 2016 U.S. elections-- and that Trump campaign staffers had multiple contacts with Russian officials and cut outs in 2016-- something that Trump has repeatedly lied about since 2016.  

Contrary to the incessant Trump/Fox propaganda of the past three years, "Russiagate" was not a "hoax."

Secondly, it is an established fact that Donald Trump and his associates-- including Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Roger Stone, and Bill Barr-- repeatedly obstructed justice to cover up the Trump Russiagate scandal.  Mueller was not permitted to indict Trump for obstruction of justice, but he explicitly stated that his investigation "did not exonerate" Trump.

 

*  On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

U.S. District Court Judge Sullivan may refuse to accept the dismissal because Flynn voluntarily under oath pleaded guilty twice. Or he may appoint a special prosecutor to review the case for the court before making a final decision on the dismissal. He ordered this course once before, in the case of convicted Senator Stevens of Alaska. If the special prosecutor found that the dismissal was not warranted, this would be a real blow to Attorney General Barr's attempt to politicize the Justice Department to protect Trump's allies who run afoul of the law.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Flynn and his highly respected lawyers then entered guilty pleas to the accurate charges of making false and fraudulent statements to the FBI.

Good post William!, It's amazing how Fox News and some on this forum try to push this analogy that Flynn is a victim, similar to some black ghetto youth who is forced into a guilty plea because he has no means to fight  the system. Flynn had high priced lawyers and copped a plea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The well-known legal analyst Jonathan Turley believes the Motion To Dismiss is the right decision. He finds precedent in case law, and has appeared before the same judge on similar issues.

https://jonathanturley.org

This discussion has been ongoing in the Zaid thread in the JFK DeepPolitics section. The issue of the guilty plea is not relevant to the Motion, which found that the indictment had no basis to begin with, as the alleged “lies” were not materially relevant to the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is due to the action of one person. Jeff of course you have a right to change hats to defend an AG who let off the defendants in Contra affair as well.

Jonathan Turley,  the great Fox News Senate Republican "liberal hope" when it serves their purpose. Just as in the poor blacks being bullied into copping a plea. You would never have heard one story about Jonathan Turley by Fox News otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, when did Fox hire you?  Can they send me an app also? 

Wait until they get a load of my take on JFK, MLK and RFK  and Malcom.

Satire off.

William:

You are assuming something that has not been proven, and will not be proven.  But again, let me know what is in those 53 depositions.  I hope it is more than the Steele Dossier or what Mueller  talked about before congress.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The well-known legal analyst Jonathan Turley believes the Motion To Dismiss is the right decision. He finds precedent in case law, and has appeared before the same judge on similar issues.

How did Turley get well-known?

He was on all over cable news in 1998 arguing that lying under oath about adultery is an impeachable offense.

A few months ago Trump called him to defend before the Senate the idea that extorting foreign governments to interfere in our 2020 election was not impeachable.

“Well known legal analyst”? Fascism apologist, more like it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

William, how much evidence do you need?

The FBI's conduct in Flynn's case has come under scrutiny, and last week the issue was again highlighted due to newly released handwritten FBI notes.

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?," reads handwritten notes of a senior official say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How did Turley get well-known?

He was on all over cable news in 1998 arguing that lying under oath about adultery is an impeachable offense.

A few months ago Trump called him to defend before the Senate the idea that extorting foreign governments to interfere in our 2020 election was not impeachable.

“Well known legal analyst”? Fascism apologist, more like it.

 

This is the essence of the problem with public misconceptions about Russiagate and, now, Bill Barr's latest Michael Flynn travesty.

The false Trump/Fox/GOP counter-narrative framing Russiagate as an "FBI coup," and dismissing the Mueller Report findings, (about systematic Russian election interference and the Trump cabal's recurrent obstruction of justice) have taken root in Trumptopia.

It's classic Bernays Propaganda 101-- repeat the lie until people believe it is true.

This false "Deep State coup" Trump/Fox counter-narrative about Russiagate being a "hoax" is analogous to the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" narrative about JFK's assassination.

Turley, Dershowitz, and Giuliani have become the Vincent Bugliosies and Gerald Posners of the Russiagate cover up.

No reputable judicial experts agree with Barr's outrageous dismissal of these charges against Michael Flynn.

Flynn pled guilty because he is guilty.  And he, himself,  debunked Jeff Carter's claim that he "could not recall" his phone call to Kisylak.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites

William, the quote above is from CNBC.  So please do not give me that Varnellian Kill the Messenger BS.  It does not apply.

This next quote is from CNN.  As you can see, they were going to close the investigation before PS and LP got together and decided to do the above, the perjury trap.

On Thursday, Flynn's team made public in court more records they received this week from Jensen -- text messages between Strzok and Page and an FBI memo about closing the Flynn investigation in early January, before his sanctions discussion with Kislyak was widely known.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really puzzles me that so many liberals want to go after Trump in a lost cause that can only help him win in the fall.

There are so many other areas that he seems to me to be vulnerable on:

1.) Exactly what is he going to replace Obamacare with?  Make him produce something tangible.

2.) What did his tax reform bill actually do for the economy?  Nothing as far as i can see except make rich people richer.

3.) What is the point in bankrupting the country but still giving the Pentagon everything they ask for?

4.) Why did he deny the existence of CV 19 for over two months, allowing it to spread almost everywhere?  Why did he not send a tracer team into Washington and the Pacific Northwest at the  start and set up field hospitals for quarantine purposes?  If he did not know what he was doing, why did he not bring in someone who did and make him the field supervisor?

How does any of the above Make America Great Again?

Finally, where is Joe Biden? Is he running a campaign or not?

Keep pounding a dead horse. Trump will be there until 2024.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It really puzzles me that so many liberals want to go after Trump in a lost cause that can only help him win in the fall.

There are so many other areas that he seems to me to be vulnerable on:

1.) Exactly what is he going to replace Obamacare with?  Make him produce something tangible.

2.) What did his tax reform bill actually do for the economy?  Nothing as far as i can see except make rich people richer.

3.) What is the point in bankrupting the country but still giving the Pentagon everything they ask for?

4.) Why did he deny the existence of CV 19 for over two months, allowing it to spread almost everywhere?  Why did he not send a tracer team into Washington and the Pacific Northwest at the  start and set up field hospitals for quarantine purposes?  If he did not know what he was doing, why did he not bring in someone who did and make him the field supervisor?

How does any of the above Make America Great Again?

Finally, where is Joe Biden? Is he running a campaign or not?

Keep pounding a dead horse. Trump will be there until 2024.

DiEugenio has spent the last 4 years repeating Trump talking points about the deep state. His mis-characterizations of the Flynn case are only his latest apologia for the fascist takeover of the Justice Department.

DiEugenio has been on the opposite side from The Resistance and now he’s pretending to lead it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, the quote above is from CNBC.  So please do not give me that Varnellian Kill the Messenger BS.  It does not apply.

This next quote is from CNN.  As you can see, they were going to close the investigation before PS and LP got together and decided to do the above, the perjury trap.

On Thursday, Flynn's team made public in court more records they received this week from Jensen -- text messages between Strzok and Page and an FBI memo about closing the Flynn investigation in early January, before his sanctions discussion with Kislyak was widely known.

 

Jim,

      I'm not an attorney or a law enforcement officer, but this Lawfare analysis* thoroughly debunks Barr's legal case for dropping the charges against Flynn.  It also debunks the M$M Trumpaganda about the FBI's "unfair" interrogation of Michael Flynn-- which seems like a variation on the same old Trump/Fox/GOP false counter-narrative about Russiagate.

     And, incidentally, the Trump administration explicitly asked the SCOTUS this week to block Congress from receiving the full Mueller Report.

     Any thoughts about why Trump and Bill Barr have been fighting tooth-and-claw for the past 14 months to prevent Congress from seeing the full Mueller Report-- after Barr went public with a blatantly false summary of Mueller's findings?

*The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites

How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

The FBI did not set Flynn up in a perjury trap. They conducted themselves according to Standard Operating Procedure.

Flynn lied to the FBI about his call to the Russian Amb. Then he lied to VP Pence. Then Trump fired him.

How DiEugenio blames any of this on the liberal blogosphere is baffling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim said, Keep pounding a dead horse. Trump will be there until 2024.

 

You're pounding the dead horse,Jim. You're continually working yourself into a lather about this and it's not good for your health.

I'm sorry Jim, shamelessly piggybacking on Bill Barr's unearned position as AG is like bragging to us about getting Lowell Cohn's autograph. It don't make it!

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

The entire regurgitation of this at this point is probably not worth .5% in polls if that,  because so much has gone on since.

So actually I agree. Let's not hijack this thread any further.  Try this link and maybe it will help you get off this topic and give you some peace. But somehow I kind of doubt it.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...