Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

briany

drogon. wrote: »

Is he legally allowed to do that ?

I suppose we'll find out.

namloc1980

bewareofthedog wrote: »

We're dealing in semantics, but Trump changed his story later.

https://apnews.com/article/f5ab3e3c75304b9bbe1e4b32322b3faf

"Trump alters story on why he fired Flynn"

"President Donald Trump changed his story Saturday on why he fired Michael Flynn as his national security adviser, now suggesting he knew at the time that Flynn had lied to the FBI as well as to Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russians during the presidential transition.

That was a turnabout from his initial explanations that Flynn had to go because he hadn’t been straight with Pence about those contacts."

Not semantics. You said he fired him for misleading Pence and claimed not because he lied to the FBI. Trump's tweet confirms you were wrong.

bewareofthedog

everlast75 wrote: »

He pled guilty. Twice!

Then he pretended to cooperate, then tried to weasel out of his plea, then hired that lunatic Powell to try scorch the earth with bizarre conspiracy theories.

The judge asked the Prosecution why they didn't charge him with treason.

Think what you like, but try base it all on facts

Flynn was cleared by the FBI initially over the phonecalls and the 13th floor or whatever it's called on the FBI to close their investigation into him as their was no evidence of wrongdoing.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/315793-fbi-found-no-wrongdoing-in-flynns-calls-with-russian

FBI found no wrongdoing in Flynn’s calls with Russia: report

An FBI review of communications between Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. and President Trump’s national security adviser did not produce any incriminating evidence, The Washington Post reported Monday night.

---

McCabe and Strzok went against those orders trying to get him procecuted under the hatch act or whatever it's called and interviewed him without an attorney present and that's when the whole legal mess started.

deceit

This bit from the hearing is interesting (its a minute long so it should be easily digestible), other videos show the reactions also that they are shocked at hearing it. If democrats can prove this is false information this would pretty much end any challenge so I hope to see if they challenge it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgNocfehJ0s

omega man

Flynn has the dirt I’d wager. Trump covering his ass.

bewareofthedog

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not semantics. You said he fired him for misleading Pence and claimed not because he lied to the FBI. Trump's tweet confirms you were wrong.

So if Trump says something on the spot, like I dunno - " I fired Comey because of Russia " - then later changes his story to " It has nothing to do with Russia " we should believe the second explanation?

Solid logic there.

ohnonotgmail

drogon. wrote: »

Is he legally allowed to do that ?

There is a question mark over whether he can pardon himself. He would have to resign and let Pence pardon him.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1331660557355790338?s=19

Ha bet he does.

ohnonotgmail

deceit wrote: »

This bit from the hearing is interesting (its a minute long so it should be easily digestible), other videos show the reactions also that they are shocked at hearing it. If democrats can prove this is false information this would pretty much end any challenge so I hope to see if they challenge it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgNocfehJ0s

It is not interesting at all and has been well discussed. and it is not up to democrats to prove it is false. it is up to the GOP to prove it is true and so far they have failed dramatically in trying to do that.

namloc1980

bewareofthedog wrote: »

So if Trump says something on the spot, like I dunno - " I fired Comey because of Russia " - then later changes his story to " It has nothing to do with Russia " we should believe the second explanation?

Solid logic there.

So Trump's tweet is a lie?

bewareofthedog

namloc1980 wrote: »

So Trump's tweet is a lie?

When Trump was being inaugurated and doing all his initial pressers, which I watched, he never once mentioned the FBI as a reason for firing Flynn. All he spouted about was misleading Pence. That's what I'm basing my reasoning on.

everlast75

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Flynn was cleared by the FBI initially over the phonecalls and the 13th floor or whatever it's called on the FBI to close their investigation into him as their was no evidence of wrongdoing.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/315793-fbi-found-no-wrongdoing-in-flynns-calls-with-russian

FBI found no wrongdoing in Flynn’s calls with Russia: report

An FBI review of communications between Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. and President Trump’s national security adviser did not produce any incriminating evidence, The Washington Post reported Monday night.

---

McCabe and Strzok went against those orders trying to get him procecuted under the hatch act or whatever it's called and interviewed him without an attorney present and that's when the whole legal mess started.

A national security advisor and 4 star general was duped into lying to the FBI, which he knew was a crime, without a lawyer?

Is that what you are saying.

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Flynn was cleared by the FBI initially over the phonecalls and the 13th floor or whatever it's called on the FBI to close their investigation into him as their was no evidence of wrongdoing.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/315793-fbi-found-no-wrongdoing-in-flynns-calls-with-russian

FBI found no wrongdoing in Flynn’s calls with Russia: report

An FBI review of communications between Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. and President Trump’s national security adviser did not produce any incriminating evidence, The Washington Post reported Monday night.

---

McCabe and Strzok went against those orders trying to get him procecuted under the hatch act or whatever it's called and interviewed him without an attorney present and that's when the whole legal mess started.

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

namloc1980

bewareofthedog wrote: »

When Trump was being inaugurated and doing all his initial pressers, which I watched, he never once mentioned the FBI as a reason for firing Flynn. All he spouted about was misleading Pence. That's what I'm basing my reasoning on.

So you believe Trump lied in December 2017. Why would he like so blatantly?

By the way your logic is bonkers. Someone says something but later clarifies it. In your view only the first thing they said should be believed. The clarification is a lie. Weird take.

bewareofthedog

everlast75 wrote: »

A national security advisor and 4 star general was duped into lying to the FBI, which he knew was a crime, without a lawyer?

Is that what you are saying.

What's your logic?

That it's a good thing FBI agents are capable of doing such a thing?

Flynn believed he was cleared, which he was.

bewareofthedog

namloc1980 wrote: »

So you believe Trump lied in December 2017. Why would he like so blatantly?

By the way your logic is bonkers. Someone says something but later clarifies it. In your view only the first thing they said should be believed. The clarification is a lie. Weird take.

Did you not read the AP link I posted? I'm not pulling my assertion out of the air.

"Amid questions raised by the tweet, Trump associates tried to put distance Saturday evening between the president himself and the tweet. One person familiar with the situation said the tweet was actually crafted by John Dowd, one of the president’s personal attorneys. Dowd declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press on Saturday night."

bewareofthedog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

As part of a plea deal, early this year he tried to revoke it.

everlast75

bewareofthedog wrote: »

What's your logic?

That it's a good thing FBI agents are capable of doing such a thing?

Flynn believed he was cleared, which he was.

My logic is the dog in the street knows it's a crime to lie to the FBI.

Flynn knew it was a crime.

He did it anyway.

Then he pled guilty to it.

Then he pled guilty to it again.

Whether the fact that lying to the FBI is a crime is fair or not is another discussion.

He is a self confessed criminal.

Accepting a pardon means he is accepting he is guilty for a 3rd time.

The situation here is that he is lied for Trump and he is being rewarded.

bewareofthedog

everlast75 wrote: »

My logic is the dog in the street knows it's a crime to lie to the FBI.

Flynn knew it was a crime.

He did it anyway.

Then he pled guilty to it.

Then he pled guilty to it again.

Whether the fact that lying to the FBI is a crime is fair or not is another discussion.

He is a self confessed criminal.

Accepting a pardon means he is accepting he is guilty for a 3rd time.

The situation here is that he is lied for Trump and he is being rewarded.

Why would he have purposely lied if the FBI had already listened to all his phone calls and cleared him?

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

As part of a plea deal, early this year he tried to revoke it.

He didnt try to revoke it. Trump lackey Barr tried to revoke it.

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Why would he have purposely lied if the FBI had already listened to all his phone calls and cleared him?

he admitted he lied. people who haven't lied don't do that.

bewareofthedog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He didnt try to revoke it. Trump lackey Barr tried to revoke it.

He did back in January. I don't see much of a mention of Barr in that article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-withdraw-099021

"Former national security adviser Michael Flynn — the only Trump administration official to face criminal prosecution in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — is seeking to withdraw the guilty plea he offered more than two years ago to a charge of making false statements to the FBI.

The move, made just two weeks before Flynn is supposed to face his long-delayed sentencing, follows Flynn’s shift to more confrontational defense lawyers about half a year ago and an ensuing, acrimonious showdown with prosecutors over the retired Army general’s planned testimony in a related case."

bewareofthedog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he admitted he lied. people who haven't lied don't do that.

Well that's not true now it is. If you had the option of taking a plea deal or facing serious litigation, defending against the US government which would run into the hundreds of thousands you could probably understand it.

Technically he did lie, I don't believe it was purposeful deceit because all his phone calls were listened to by the FBI and he was cleared.

The FBI were instructed to end their investigation into him, instead McCabe, Strzok et al tried to prosecute him under the Logan act, an act which nobody has been prosecuted under in 200 years.

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Well that's not true now it is. If you had the option of taking a plea deal or facing serious litigation, defending against the US government which would run into the hundreds of thousands you could probably understand it.

Technically he did lie, I don't believe it was purposeful deceit because all his phone calls were listened to by the FBI and he was cleared.

The FBI were instructed to end their investigation into him, instead McCabe, Strzok et al tried to prosecute him under the Logan act, an act which nobody has been prosecuted under in 200 years.

so he didn't lie he did something more serious but admitted to lying to get away with that?

bewareofthedog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he didn't lie he did something more serious but admitted to lying to get away with that?

I have no idea what you mean.

This is what I believed happened...

Flynn was calling Russian Ambassador during the transition, among others

Report gets leaked in the press about it from a tip off from some intelligence agency guy, ( McCabe was caught leaking reports to the press
around this time ) Also Russian conspiracy stuff in very hot at the time

Flynn feeling under pressure misleads Pence and gets fired

FBI conduct a review of all foreign calls made by Flynn and clear him of any wrongdoing

Upper FBI heads ( this has been cited in hearings so it's not speculation ) order FBI to end investigation into Flynn

Instead McCabe, Strzok and others decide to try and prosecute Flynn under the Logan act and catch him in sort of technicality or non purposeful deceit

Anyway I won't convince anyone here who believes one way or the another, nor will they convince me. We can all have our own opinion about things.

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean.

This is what I believed happened...

Flynn was calling Russian Ambassador during the transition, among others

Report gets leaked in the press about it from a tip off from some intelligence agency guy, ( McCabe were caught leaking reports to the press
around this time ) Also Russian conspiracy stuff in very hot at the time.

Flynn feeling under pressure misleads Pence and gets fired

FBI conduct a review of all foreign calls made by Flynn and clear him of any wrongdoing

Upper FBI heads ( this has been cited in hearings so it's not speculation ) order FBI to end investigation into Flynn

Instead McCabe, Strzok and others decide to try and prosecute Flynn under the Logan act and catch him in sort of technicality or non purposeful deceit

Anyway I won't convince anyone here who believes one way or the another, nor will they convince me. We can all have our own opinion about things.

nobody cares what you believe. Flynn admitted to lying. so either he did lie or he admitted to that to get off on a greater crime.

bewareofthedog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody cares what you believe. Flynn admitted to lying. so either he did lie or he admitted to that to get off on a greater crime.

I couldn't care less what you think either.

Not everything is black and white, I don't believe Flynn purposely lied. I believe he was caught in a technicality and unfairly treated.

If you believe that warrants prosecution of an individual then so be it. If he truly had something to hide then why attend with no lawyer?

ohnonotgmail

bewareofthedog wrote: »

I couldn't care less what you think either.

Not everything is black and white, I don't believe Flynn purposely lied. I believe he was caught in a technicality and unfairly treated.

If you believe that warrants prosecution of an individual then so be it. If he truly had something to hide then why attend with no lawyer?

Boo Hoo. the poor man.

cameramonkey

Has Trump won the election yet? Or is he a loser?

dinorebel

cameramonkey wrote: »

Has Trump won the election yet? Or is he a loser?

He's actually losing at losing.