(05-20-2020 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad, perhaps you might want to conjoin your tome on 'informing the subject' with the things that went on with 'informing General Flynn'. Like ---- clearing him then going back to the trough through an utter bull**** vector, in which the stated goal was to 'get him to commit perjury' or to 'get him fired'.

You know, *that* level of zealousness and informing that seemed the rule with the St Barry administration.

The same level of 'informing' that was seemingly present when it is very obvious that Mueller knew the entire collusion pile of crap was a nothingburger 2 months in -- yet invariably ketp it afloat to set up a perjury trap. That sort of 'informing'?

You seem to lose sight of some serious portion of the forest here lad. Again, funny that. Color me absolutely shocked.

For a second, let's clarify a central tenant of your argument, which keeps bugging me.

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...

The initial note was followed up with a note reading "We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrong doing."

And further on there are notes about the various paths they could go down regarding Flynn telling the truth/lying.

My point is this - if you're going to seize on the note about getting Flynn to lie, you should also seize on the note about getting Flynn to tell the truth. That's the logically consistent thing to do.

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

Great, so the goal was : a) get him to admit to a violation drummed up to keep the Crossfire burning; b) get him to perjure himself (violation of 1001); or c) get him fired.

Sorry, the addition of your omitted agenda item of 'get him to admit to a ginned up charge, a charge we manufactured to keep Crossfire going on him' doesnt help your protestations much.

So, we included it now. Happy? Tell us how the hell that changes the calculus? There was no goal to 'exonerate'. Period. That item seemingly doesnt enter into your thought process.

There was also a specific goal to *ensure* that Flynn was not afforded the typical protections in such a prospecting trip. In fact, the Feeb higher level, Strzok, *and* the partner manufactured a trip specifically in order to bushwhack him.

I guess that is fine and dandy in lad world. Doesnt sit well with this ignorant redneck. So what came out of it was the following:

The memo came out that the Crossfire Flynn was no longer a valid item -- it was ordered closed.

The upper echelons came together to specifically determine what utter asinine and bull**** excuse they could gin up to keep *something* going against Flynn. i.e. the Rice / Obama / Yates / Comey meeting. An 'enlightened' decision was reached to mark the ongoing efforts up to a complete **** excuse -- a law that is measured in indictments per century that dont come out to 3.

But since Rice mentioned 3 times that it is 'by the book', then saying that those 3 magic times, like 'there is nowhere like home', or 'Candyman', or 'Beetlejuice' said those 3 magic times, makes it undeniable reality.

One thing I have learned in the 25 years of legal background, is that when someone says 'it is legal', or 'it is proper' --- once --- then there might be decent background. When someone incessantly says those terms, like the 3 times Rice says it, that tells me that it either isnt, or is so fing close to the line that one has to dance a lad cha cha cha to make it so. But then again, that is just years of observation from an ignorant redneck noting that.... Just saying.

So, getting back to the main subject, the super team heads back out with this +8 law of demon slaying with the specific directions to: a) have the subject incriminate himself; b) have the subject run afoul of the +20 law of dont tell a FIB to the FBI; or c) get the subject fired.

Notwithstanding it is perfectly normal for the subject to be in contact with whom he has been. Notwithstanding the archaic bull**** application of law with 2.2 indictments / century since its passage 221 years ago. Notwithstanding that the entire 'interview with a goal to kill' is camoed up in the +15 cloak of invisibility that the agents are there to provide background.

And all of the above is copacetic in lad-view. Anything else to add? Yep, all appears fine and dandy and kosher with *that* blockbuster delineation you make.....