(05-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You sum up those statements pretty well - pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun, but there was smoke...

Smoking guns make smoke. So do fires. So do smoke machines.

I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

(05-09-2020 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question:
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

I think this is significant for an unrelated reason. UN Ambassadors don't get intel information. That made then-UN-Ambassador Susan Rice the perfect person to go on TV to talk about the "video-inspired" riot. She didn't have any actual information, so she had complete deniability. At the same time, UN Ambassador sounds like an important position, so she could have at least the appearance of credibility. It was a clever ruse by the Obama administration. But they were good at clever ruses.

Quote:pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun

lad, your 'paraphrase' was incorrect. It isnt just '[no] smoking gun'. It *was* zero tangible real evidence.

As in Zero.

Nada.

Nil.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Zip.

Naught.

Empty set.

e^( (i * pi)/2).

Your paraphrase above does about as much justice the reality of the situation as noting that someone that was decapitated and broiled alive as 'having an accident.'

Zero evidence --- and the comment coming back is (/ start mr peabody voice mode) 'well there is still smoke'. (/end mr peabody voice). Lolz.

Boy, talk about bitter clingers.

(05-09-2020 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question:
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

I think this is significant for an unrelated reason. UN Ambassadors don't get intel information. That made then-UN-Ambassador Susan Rice the perfect person to go on TV to talk about the "video-inspired" riot. She didn't have any actual information, so she had complete deniability. At the same time, UN Ambassador sounds like an important position, so she could have at least the appearance of credibility. It was a clever ruse by the Obama administration. But they were good at clever ruses.

The transcripts as a whole are kind of juicy to read. The Obama administration members' responses are fantastic to run an ad for Arthur Murray dance studios when asked about proof.

Anytime anyone has to parse those amazing phrases there is a surprise in the wood pile. When you have a gaggle of them doing that in unison, you *know* there are a *lot* of surprises in that woodpile.

The Republican questioners really nailed their asses to the wall during that group cha-cha-cha revue.

So, now all we have from the left is the plaintive, lonely cry of 'but, but, but, but, there WAS smoke! really, finger pinky swear!' If the results werent so fing grotesque it would be laughable.

Kind of a neat taste pairing with the **** sandwich that the underlying facts tell us about the Flynn prosecution.

I cant wait for Durham to start showing stuff in the open on this pile of crap.

(05-09-2020 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

Smoke machines named Strzok, Comey, Clapper, the Hillary campaign, the Obama Administration...

Sure did fool a lot of the soldier ants, many of whom are still clinging bitterly to the collusion fable.

(05-09-2020 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun

lad, your 'paraphrase' was incorrect. It isnt just '[no] smoking gun'. It *was* zero tangible real evidence.

As in Zero.

Nada.

Nil.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Zip.

Naught.

Empty set.

e^( (i * pi)/2).

Your paraphrase above does about as much justice the reality of the situation as noting that someone that was decapitated and broiled alive as 'having an accident.'

Zero evidence --- and the comment coming back is (/ start mr peabody voice mode) 'well there is still smoke'. (/end mr peabody voice). Lolz.

Boy, talk about bitter clingers.

What’s the difference between “tangible evidence” and a “smoking gun” in this instance? Is one more tangibler than the other?

They all seem to say, we didn’t not find a piece of evidence the directly connected the campaign to Russian interference (smoking gun/tangible evidence), but we observed evidence of Russian interference and Trump campaign actions that, as one put it, gave pause.

I didn’t realize that we only conducted investigations when direct evidence/smoking guns were available at the start of the investigation.

One doesnt start an investigation when 'as one put it, gave pause'. Which is what happened here.

The germination of an investigation doesnt happen when items that (/mr peabody voice) 'give pause' (/end mr peabody voice) occur. The threshold is much, much, much more than that.

But, when we have an asshat of a President whom is the one that pushes for an investigation of an *incoming* NatSec for a fing Logan Act violation, and uses that farcical and facially wrong level to bootstrap to grabbing at *anything* this is the level of crap one must expect.

But I guess that will be them thar' fightin' words for a Logan Act purist such as yourself.

(05-09-2020 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

Smoke machines named Strzok, Comey, Clapper, the Hillary campaign, the Obama Administration...

Sure did fool a lot of the soldier ants, many of whom are still clinging bitterly to the collusion fable.

Brennan, Rice, Yates to name some more.

(05-09-2020 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

Smoke machines named Strzok, Comey, Clapper, the Hillary campaign, the Obama Administration...

Sure did fool a lot of the soldier ants, many of whom are still clinging bitterly to the collusion fable.

Brennan, Rice, Yates to name some more.

Will be interesting to see what the judge does with this stinking pile of poo. On the one hand you have Gen. F, plead guilty in his court to lying to the FBI (and VP) on the other hand you have the "human scum" aka senior DOJ employees who, per an independent review, overstepped, treated a decorated general like any other criminal.

Not sure why S. Yates gets the human scum treatment here.

Long game, another circular firing squad and another win for Putin.

(05-09-2020 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You sum up those statements pretty well - pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun, but there was smoke...

Smoking guns make smoke. So do fires. So do smoke machines.

I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

So worth investigating to see what was actually happening, so not a witch hunt?

(05-09-2020 03:06 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Long game, another circular firing squad and another win for Putin.

Not quite seeing the win for Putin.

(05-09-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One doesnt start an investigation when 'as one put it, gave pause'. Which is what happened here.

The germination of an investigation doesnt happen when items that (/mr peabody voice) 'give pause' (/end mr peabody voice) occur. The threshold is much, much, much more than that.

Not sure how these things usually work, but I just watched McMillions (HBO documentary on the McDonald's / Monopoly fraud). That investigation seems to have started with much, much, much less than even "gave pause". According to the agent who started the investigation, it started with him seeing a post-it note from an anonymous source that read "McDonald's Monopoly Fraud?" that was stuck to another agent's desk and he thought it sounded more interesting than what he was doing at the time so he started digging into it.

Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

To the bolded:

Nobody can "do" anything until after Inauguration Day. As to "promise', that happens all the time, during the campaign, when part of the platform is that certain aspects of the current Admin's foreign policies will be be stopped or reversed. The most somebody like Flynn could do is promise that XYZ would be done starting jan. 20, and then do it. Now I don't know what Kerry could have promised Iran that they would think could have come from Trump. Maybe that the US would be more flexible after the next impeachment or election?

It is silly in this day and age to even consider that some government would take a person to be a representative just because he says so. In 1799, that was plausible, but not since the transatlantic telephone and the wireless has it been a concern.

The thing about Flynn pleading guilty is tiresome. People plead guilty in plea deals all the time for a host of reasons other than actually being guilty - no jail time, to save a family member from prosecution, running out of money to defend oneself, all of the above which were factors in Flynn's case. One of my cousins pled guilty to something I felt they were innocent of just to get it over. I told them to fight it, they were happy with two years probation.

(05-09-2020 03:06 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what we had here was a gaggle of smoke machines.

Smoke machines named Strzok, Comey, Clapper, the Hillary campaign, the Obama Administration...

Sure did fool a lot of the soldier ants, many of whom are still clinging bitterly to the collusion fable.

Brennan, Rice, Yates to name some more.

Will be interesting to see what the judge does with this stinking pile of poo. On the one hand you have Gen. F, plead guilty in his court to lying to the FBI (and VP) on the other hand you have the "human scum" aka senior DOJ employees who, per an independent review, overstepped, treated a decorated general like any other criminal.

Not sure why S. Yates gets the human scum treatment here.

Long game, another circular firing squad and another win for Putin.

Maybe if Obama hadnt weaponized the FBI and the intelligence community in order to tag as many hits as he could to the incoming Trump administration this wouldnt have happened. Funny that. Always remember -- ZERO EVIDENCE

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

All the while using the Logan Act to keep his case from being closed (as originally noted it should be in the memo of Jan 40, I'm sorry, that was just a gd grotesque use of law enforcement power.

Strzok and everyone he fing reported to should be sent to the gd pen for those actions.

They went after him for a reason. It wasn't "smoke".

They kept his case open after no evidence was found...for a reason. It wasn't worry about him contravening Obama policy three weeks from Inauguration day.

They offered him a plea deal for a reason. it wasn't compassion.

they needed the guilty plea to make the witch hunt/smear job plausible to the soldier ants.

Mission accomplished. The soldier ants are still defending the whole concoction based on Flynn's guilty plea. That is the hook on which they hang their hat.

Trump let them do their worst, and nothing came of it (for him). It was all just to manipulate the polls, it turns out. If Trump wins re-election, then it was all for nothing.

But they don't care. All is permissible if the goal is to get Trump. They will ruin lives to reach their goal. They did.

Just watched a story about a man convicted and sent to death row, spent 16 years there. Turns out the DA had exculpatory evidence he withheld. The DA still swears it was a legit case. Reminds me of somebody - a lot of somebodies, in fact.

On top of it, now Obama has penned a missive stating that it is 'unprecedented that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic – not just institutional norms – but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.'

First: Flynn wasnt charged with perjury, he was charged with intentionally telling a falsehood to the FBI.

Second: There are literally scores of cases where someone charged with 'perjury' (or a violation of 1005) get off 'scot-free'. It is called being found not guilty or having the charges dropped.

Third: If what Captain Kickass is complaining about is that the government dropped the charges to a flagrant case of misconduct, well, Captain Kickass shouldnt look any further than the his own gd attorney general, Eric Holder, who directed that a defendant who had *already* been found guilty, should have the charges against him dropped *because* of the same sort of prosecutorial misconduct here. Ted Stevens --- and in fact that occurred in front of the same friggin' judge that this one was in front of.

Fourth: Also consider that Obama apparently personally discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act, which has been used a grand total of 4 times in 2 and quarter centuries, and never been used successfully to convict anyone; he brought it forward himself in the Oval Office as President.

What a fing tool.

(05-09-2020 03:06 PM)ausowl Wrote:  other hand you have the "human scum" aka senior DOJ employees who, per an independent review, overstepped, treated a decorated general like any other criminal.

Funny you sidestep and neglect to mention an absolute ****-ton of prosecutorial misconduct here in your pithy comment. Amazing that.

Not just using an absolute craptastic stretch to 'keep an inquiry open', but you awesomely neglect the fundamental coverup and refusal to disclose stunningly pertinent information to the defense --- items that are not just mandated because the defense called for their production, but also because the judge in the case issued numerous orders for such production, oh, and dont forget that the basis for the production isnt just for ***** and giggles, it is an actual fundamental requirement of the Constitution to do so.

Yes, Strzok, and the cabal that directed that the investigation be kept open no matter what and on any fing pretext, and to the people that seemingly covered up this **** are absolutely 'human scum'. But please, overlook those details some more.