(05-20-2020 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."
The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

Umm, it kinda does pretty much indicate that the goal was one or the other. Either of which would be troubling.

Quote:It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

I think it would be even more interesting to talk to whoever changed the 302 to understand why that happened. What say you?

All of the above. The sentence read alone about a potential goal being to get Flynn fired is troubling, without a doubt. That's why it would be good to go to the horses mouth.

But I don't see the outcome of getting Flynn to tell the truth as being problematic - and that was clearly the other side of the coin. The intelligence community was confused as to why Russia didn't retaliate to sanctions, they then picked up Flynn talking to Russian officials about the sanctions, and he then lied to the VP about it, possibly leveraging Flynn.

I think having a conversation with Flynn makes perfect sense, and figuring out how that conversation could go makes sense as well (and that's how those notes read to me).

(05-20-2020 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."
The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

Umm, it kinda does pretty much indicate that the goal was one or the other. Either of which would be troubling.

Quote:It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

I think it would be even more interesting to talk to whoever changed the 302 to understand why that happened. What say you?

All of the above. The sentence read alone about a potential goal being to get Flynn fired is troubling, without a doubt. That's why it would be good to go to the horses mouth.

But I don't see the outcome of getting Flynn to tell the truth as being problematic - and that was clearly the other side of the coin. The intelligence community was confused as to why Russia didn't retaliate to sanctions, they then picked up Flynn talking to Russian officials about the sanctions, and he then lied to the VP about it, possibly leveraging Flynn.

I think having a conversation with Flynn makes perfect sense, and figuring out how that conversation could go makes sense as well (and that's how those notes read to me).

Come now, you don't see the logic behind not responding to sanctions when you KNOW there will be a change of regime in three weeks? What a mystery. I would have counseled anybody to wait and talk to the new Administration instead of responding to the lame ducks. Just common sense. And I am not even Russian. Or Washingtonian.

I think bludgeoning a defendant with threats of bankruptcy and familial persecution in order to get them to admit to the "truth" one wants them to admit to reeks of coercion, not legal fact finding. I would have admitted to spying for the Russians under the pressure that they put on Flynn.

(05-20-2020 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."
The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

Umm, it kinda does pretty much indicate that the goal was one or the other. Either of which would be troubling.

Quote:It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

I think it would be even more interesting to talk to whoever changed the 302 to understand why that happened. What say you?

All of the above. The sentence read alone about a potential goal being to get Flynn fired is troubling, without a doubt. That's why it would be good to go to the horses mouth.

But I don't see the outcome of getting Flynn to tell the truth as being problematic - and that was clearly the other side of the coin. The intelligence community was confused as to why Russia didn't retaliate to sanctions, they then picked up Flynn talking to Russian officials about the sanctions, and he then lied to the VP about it, possibly leveraging Flynn.

I think having a conversation with Flynn makes perfect sense, and figuring out how that conversation could go makes sense as well (and that's how those notes read to me).

Come now, you don't see the logic behind not responding to sanctions when you KNOW there will be a change of regime in three weeks? What a mystery. I would have counseled anybody to wait and talk to the new Administration instead of responding to the lame ducks. Just common sense. And I am not even Russian. Or Washingtonian.

I think bludgeoning a defendant with threats of bankruptcy and familial persecution in order to get them to admit to the "truth" one wants them to admit to reeks of coercion, not legal fact finding. I would have admitted to spying for the Russians under the pressure that they put on Flynn.

If that's the case, then we should really take out our frustrations during the lame duck period, since we know there won't be consequences.

Quote:While right-wing media continue to whip their audiences into hysteria over a nefarious Obama-led plot to undermine Trump, the documents — strategically released by Trump’s political lackeys atop the intelligence and law enforcement communities — do absolutely nothing to further such asinine conspiracy theories. In fact, they prove the opposite.

The recently disclosed files show the Obama administration’s diligence and focus in the wake of Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Moreover, contrary to unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering, the materials demonstrate Obama’s dedication to upholding the FBI’s independence from improper political influence.

Quote:Some context is in order. In late 2016, then-President Obama slapped aggressive sanctions on Moscow in retaliation for Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Flynn, coordinating with “senior members” of the Trump team, then colluded — in the truest sense of the term — with a high-level Russian government official to undermine U.S. pressure on the Kremlin.

Putin’s uncharacteristically tepid reaction to Obama’s sanctions — including the expulsion of 35 Russian spies living in the United States — left America’s foreign policy, intelligence and law enforcement agencies stunned. After sifting through reams of intelligence, the FBI finally made sense of the normally combative Russian leader’s tame response. Thanks to routine, legal surveillance of foreign government officials, the bureau found that Flynn asked Putin, through a Russian ambassador, not to respond to Obama’s sanctions.

Quote:Conspiracy theories aside, senior Obama officials like former Vice President Joe Biden had a pressing national security interest in understanding how and why an unnamed U.S. citizen (ultimately revealed to be Flynn) undercut U.S. pressure on the Kremlin after the 2016 election. We can only hope that Trump would be so diligent under similar circumstances.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus...d-properly

(05-20-2020 10:03 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:While right-wing media continue to whip their audiences into hysteria over a nefarious Obama-led plot to undermine Trump, the documents — strategically released by Trump’s political lackeys atop the intelligence and law enforcement communities — do absolutely nothing to further such asinine conspiracy theories. In fact, they prove the opposite.

The recently disclosed files show the Obama administration’s diligence and focus in the wake of Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Moreover, contrary to unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering, the materials demonstrate Obama’s dedication to upholding the FBI’s independence from improper political influence.

Quote:Some context is in order. In late 2016, then-President Obama slapped aggressive sanctions on Moscow in retaliation for Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Flynn, coordinating with “senior members” of the Trump team, then colluded — in the truest sense of the term — with a high-level Russian government official to undermine U.S. pressure on the Kremlin.

Putin’s uncharacteristically tepid reaction to Obama’s sanctions — including the expulsion of 35 Russian spies living in the United States — left America’s foreign policy, intelligence and law enforcement agencies stunned. After sifting through reams of intelligence, the FBI finally made sense of the normally combative Russian leader’s tame response. Thanks to routine, legal surveillance of foreign government officials, the bureau found that Flynn asked Putin, through a Russian ambassador, not to respond to Obama’s sanctions.

Quote:Conspiracy theories aside, senior Obama officials like former Vice President Joe Biden had a pressing national security interest in understanding how and why an unnamed U.S. citizen (ultimately revealed to be Flynn) undercut U.S. pressure on the Kremlin after the 2016 election. We can only hope that Trump would be so diligent under similar circumstances.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus...d-properly

No, no, no, the Obama admin should have KNOWN that the tepid response was because the Trump admin was incoming and therefore would have been friendlier and reversed sanctions.

"Obama’s dedication to upholding the FBI’s independence from improper political influence."

Dedication.... lolz. Once again:

One question:

How the fk is the usage of a moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department be “by the book”? Seriously.......

I mean, using that as an excuse is only 'by the book' in some serious backward ass Bizzaro-land definition.

I mean, no one seemingly wishes to take a stab this. Nor can they actually address any other items in a fairly substantial list of really shady stuff. All they can do is palaver in grandiose terms about lackeys and ****. AtEase, address any of the long stream of factual issues noted above.... for once...

(05-20-2020 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The FBI note did not clearly have a stated goal "to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'."
The note was different, it explicitly said "What is our goal? Truth/admission or to hum to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
This doesn't clearly show that the latter was a goal - if you think that this clearly shows it was, then the FBI's other goal was getting him to tell the truth and admit to his conversations...

Umm, it kinda does pretty much indicate that the goal was one or the other. Either of which would be troubling.

Quote:It would be really interesting to talk to the FBI employee who wrote these notes to understand them better.

I think it would be even more interesting to talk to whoever changed the 302 to understand why that happened. What say you?

All of the above. The sentence read alone about a potential goal being to get Flynn fired is troubling, without a doubt. That's why it would be good to go to the horses mouth.

But I don't see the outcome of getting Flynn to tell the truth as being problematic - and that was clearly the other side of the coin. The intelligence community was confused as to why Russia didn't retaliate to sanctions, they then picked up Flynn talking to Russian officials about the sanctions, and he then lied to the VP about it, possibly leveraging Flynn.

I think having a conversation with Flynn makes perfect sense, and figuring out how that conversation could go makes sense as well (and that's how those notes read to me).

Come now, you don't see the logic behind not responding to sanctions when you KNOW there will be a change of regime in three weeks? What a mystery. I would have counseled anybody to wait and talk to the new Administration instead of responding to the lame ducks. Just common sense. And I am not even Russian. Or Washingtonian.

I think bludgeoning a defendant with threats of bankruptcy and familial persecution in order to get them to admit to the "truth" one wants them to admit to reeks of coercion, not legal fact finding. I would have admitted to spying for the Russians under the pressure that they put on Flynn.

If that's the case, then we should really take out our frustrations during the lame duck period, since we know there won't be consequences.

Lots of things happen during the lame duck period, such as pardons, for those reasons.

Every incoming administration projects actions it will take that might be against the policy of the outgoing bunch. such as when Obama said that he would close Gitmo on his first day.

(05-20-2020 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 10:03 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:While right-wing media continue to whip their audiences into hysteria over a nefarious Obama-led plot to undermine Trump, the documents — strategically released by Trump’s political lackeys atop the intelligence and law enforcement communities — do absolutely nothing to further such asinine conspiracy theories. In fact, they prove the opposite.

The recently disclosed files show the Obama administration’s diligence and focus in the wake of Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Moreover, contrary to unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering, the materials demonstrate Obama’s dedication to upholding the FBI’s independence from improper political influence.

Quote:Some context is in order. In late 2016, then-President Obama slapped aggressive sanctions on Moscow in retaliation for Russia’s sweeping assault on American democracy. Flynn, coordinating with “senior members” of the Trump team, then colluded — in the truest sense of the term — with a high-level Russian government official to undermine U.S. pressure on the Kremlin.

Putin’s uncharacteristically tepid reaction to Obama’s sanctions — including the expulsion of 35 Russian spies living in the United States — left America’s foreign policy, intelligence and law enforcement agencies stunned. After sifting through reams of intelligence, the FBI finally made sense of the normally combative Russian leader’s tame response. Thanks to routine, legal surveillance of foreign government officials, the bureau found that Flynn asked Putin, through a Russian ambassador, not to respond to Obama’s sanctions.

Quote:Conspiracy theories aside, senior Obama officials like former Vice President Joe Biden had a pressing national security interest in understanding how and why an unnamed U.S. citizen (ultimately revealed to be Flynn) undercut U.S. pressure on the Kremlin after the 2016 election. We can only hope that Trump would be so diligent under similar circumstances.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus...d-properly

No, no, no, the Obama admin should have KNOWN that the tepid response was because the Trump admin was incoming and therefore would have been friendlier and reversed sanctions.

Who didn't know that.

Here is the problem with the whole exchange...

Very clearly, 'what Flynn did' (a post-election act) was not remotely related to the 'collusion in impacting the election' (a pre-election act which was the subject of the investigation) and while the sanctions that were imposed (that were supposedly the subject of the conversation, though I STILL never saw a 'negotiation'... merely a 'statement of intent'...) were connected, the sanctions, too were a post-election event. Barring some sort of statement... 'Hey thanks for helping us get elected, we will do our part in response' which never happened... the 'negotiation' is not at all related to the investigation.

While I understand that this technical violation is 'okay' with those out to GET TRUMP... protection from this sort of thing is afforded to common criminals, much less elected officials. Technically legal or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that liberal groups normally abhor.

The event charged was not related to the event being investigated and was merely used as leverage to try and get information that they were convinced existed, but couldn't find any other way.

And this wasn't the only case where they did this. The overwhelming majority of the charges filed (and touted by the left as justification for the investigation) was like this.... and they STILL couldn't find the proof they sought.

(05-20-2020 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here is the problem with the whole exchange...

Very clearly, 'what Flynn did' (a post-election act) was not remotely related to the 'collusion in impacting the election' (a pre-election act which was the subject of the investigation) and while the sanctions that were imposed (that were supposedly the subject of the conversation, though I STILL never saw a 'negotiation'... merely a 'statement of intent'...) were connected, the sanctions, too were a post-election event. Barring some sort of statement... 'Hey thanks for helping us get elected, we will do our part in response' which never happened... the 'negotiation' is not at all related to the investigation.

While I understand that this technical violation is 'okay' with those out to GET TRUMP... protection from this sort of thing is afforded to common criminals, much less elected officials. Technically legal or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that liberal groups normally abhor.

The event charged was not related to the event being investigated and was merely used as leverage to try and get information that they were convinced existed, but couldn't find any other way.

And this wasn't the only case where they did this. The overwhelming majority of the charges filed (and touted by the left as justification for the investigation) was like this.... and they STILL couldn't find the proof they sought.

And still haven't, despite the shrill protestations of Adam Schiff.

Wait....

So the outgoing administration was surprised that there wasn't any retaliation by Russia... (like retaliation is a GOOD thing) and didn't include in their calculus the idea that the sanctions on Russia related to 'collusion' with the incoming administration wouldn't be supported by the incoming administration who was openly and adamantly denying any collusion?

They're morons, then. I can't believe this is the defense that the left is putting up here.

And don't give me the 'no no no, the sanctions were for using social media to sway opinions'... something that isn't illegal and happens every day... and swaying political opinions through 'media' both internally and externally is something both the Russians and the US have done since planes dropped leaflets in the early 19th century. The left lost any credibility on it being about 'Russia' when they went after the Trump administration so boldly and aggressively.


***ETA The declassified Susan Rice emails make it clear to me that the purpose was to get Flynn and not to 'protect America'. Despite no indications that such events had happened, they had some concerns that Flynn might divulge sensitive information as a result of a 'suspicious' number of meetings with the Russian Ambassador. Their solution wasn't to warn Flynn about something that he might not be suspecting... but to limit his access to sensitive information.

I'd ask anyone, is that what you'd do? Of course not. You'd go to the guy and say.... Hey, you're new so you may not know... but this frequency of contact is unusual and they may be trying to get information from you. Be aware and careful'. That's what you'd do, and we all know it.

As I noted in another post, the progressives have gone 180 degrees in what they stand for.

Quote:Interesting point --- how is that the Flynn case has shown erstwhile liberals – people who a little more than a decade ago were marching en masse in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – have morphed into defenders of the spy state.

Here they are not just defenders of a spy state in their frenzied issues of 'Get Trump', but the defenders of using a "moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department" and defend it as being “by the book”.

Quote:The full email was declassified on Tuesday and you will be shocked to learn that the previously redacted text completely debunks the nontroversy narrative that Grenell, the MAGA media, and the Trump campaign were trying to drive with their initial leak.

Lets go to the text. Here are the newly revealed last three sentences:

[Comey] added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’ The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

So . . . the note that had been used to advance the idea that Obama was hiding info from—and even spying on!—Flynn has a line in it that indicates specifically that the president did not want to change how his administration shared classified information with the incoming administration unless something were to change, at which point he would want another briefing. And there is no evidence that another such briefing took place.

In summary here is what we know about Obama’s actions:

- He had a meeting with his intelligence team where he was briefed about Gen. Flynn’s back-channel conversations with a country that had committed an attack on our elections during his watch.
- At the meeting he is told that some of Flynn’s conversations with Russia are unusual, but none of them include the sharing of any classified intelligence.
- Obama says that the investigation should be done “by the book” unless new information comes to light at which point he should be briefed again.
- President Obama privately warns President-elect Trump about Flynn in one of their only conversations.

What we have here my friends is By-The-Book-Gate!

https://thebulwark.com/45751-2/

(05-20-2020 11:31 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The full email was declassified on Tuesday and you will be shocked to learn that the previously redacted text completely debunks the nontroversy narrative that Grenell, the MAGA media, and the Trump campaign were trying to drive with their initial leak.

Lets go to the text. Here are the newly revealed last three sentences:

[Comey] added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’ The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

So . . . the note that had been used to advance the idea that Obama was hiding info from—and even spying on!—Flynn has a line in it that indicates specifically that the president did not want to change how his administration shared classified information with the incoming administration unless something were to change, at which point he would want another briefing. And there is no evidence that another such briefing took place.

In summary here is what we know about Obama’s actions:

- He had a meeting with his intelligence team where he was briefed about Gen. Flynn’s back-channel conversations with a country that had committed an attack on our elections during his watch.
- At the meeting he is told that some of Flynn’s conversations with Russia are unusual, but none of them include the sharing of any classified intelligence.
- Obama says that the investigation should be done “by the book” unless new information comes to light at which point he should be briefed again.
- President Obama privately warns President-elect Trump about Flynn in one of their only conversations.

What we have here my friends is By-The-Book-Gate!

https://thebulwark.com/45751-2/

You omit ginning up an investigation based on "a moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department" when the original investigation showed no 'compromising information' and had been slated to be terminated.

Nor do you address the 'ambush style' interrogation, nor the stated goals of trying to ice Flynn.

Yet you staunchly are dug in ala Khe Sahn as this being “by the book”.

Lolz. I love how you omit or gloss over those stupid little issues. And continue to do so.

(05-20-2020 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I noted in another post, the progressives have gone 180 degrees in what they stand for.

Quote:Interesting point --- how is that the Flynn case has shown erstwhile liberals – people who a little more than a decade ago were marching en masse in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – have morphed into defenders of the spy state.

Here they are not just defenders of a spy state in their frenzied issues of 'Get Trump', but the defenders of using a "moribund, unconstitutional 18th-century prohibition against unauthorized diplomacy that has *never* been used in a successful prosecution, has not been invoked since prior to the Civil War, and has never been the subject of an indictment in the 150-year history of the Justice Department" and defend it as being “by the book”.

Ah, I see you read Matt Taibi too - I read his post this morning and found it interesting. The mirror in language really stood out in this phrase:

Quote:have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – into defenders of the spy state

https://taibbi.substack.com/

Regardless of the massive bent Taibbi has against the left and mainstream media right now, I thought Taibbi made some very good points about the about face of progressives with respect to civil liberties and the dubious decisions many journalists made in how they reported on the Russia investigation.

But outside of hand-waving about how old and unused a statute is, I still don't see the compelling argument as to why Flynn's actions with regards to Russia and the sanctions wouldn't be of interest to the outgoing admin; unless you're trying to argue that the outgoing admin should have not cared about anything.

Plus, I still haven't seen compelling arguments for how unmasking was used to target specific individuals, which seems to be the current rallying cry.

Points made about FISA abuses previously, and perhaps about the overall frequency of unmasking, ring true (the former especially so given the IG's findings).

Maybe Comey's "by the book" is not the same as the true "by the book".

Did he go by the book when he dismissed Hillary's case?

Maybe Comey's "by the book" is not the same as the true "by the book".

Did he go by the book when he dismissed Hillary's case?

(05-20-2020 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe Comey's "by the book" is not the same as the true "by the book".

Did he go by the book when he dismissed Hillary's case?

What about when he announced that it was being reopened right before the election?

(05-20-2020 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe Comey's "by the book" is not the same as the true "by the book".

Did he go by the book when he dismissed Hillary's case?

What about when he announced that it was being reopened right before the election?

Good question. What's the answer?

perpetual impeachment

"House Democrats told the Supreme Court Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility,” and argued that redacted grand-jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe must be turned over for their review."

\You guys wonder why conservatives see nearly everything as an attack on Trump? It is because nearly everything is.

I used to think the Mueller report would quiet the rumblings about Russia and impeachment. No, the conspiracy theorists will not stop until, IMO, at least half a decade after he leaves office - 2030.

I think it is time you guys tried your second line of attack - winning an election.

The witch hunt has its own momentum.