• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnny karate said:
Apparently, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, and a media mogul close friend aren’t credible witnesses in Trump Fanboy World.

Of course, that’s also the same world in which Obama pardoned Clinton to keep her out prison...
Click to expand...

Some Trump Aid drinkers would claim the Pope and Sister Theresa weren't credible witnesses if they'd testified on the Bible against Dear Leader. Hillary was right when she called some Trumpers 'deplorables'.
 
The Big Dog said:
AMI told the court that “there was nothing sinister” about their actions and refused to concede that their so-called “editorial decisions” were “animated by a desire to support the candidacy of Donald Trump.”

Golly, were they lying then or are they lying now?
Click to expand...

My guess is they were lying when there were no legal consequences for telling a lie. It's amazing how quickly people tell the truth when there are actual consequences for lying.
 
dudalb said:
Benedict Arnold was willing to sell out his country by betraying West Point to the British for Ten Thousand Pounds and a general's commission in the British Army.
Benedict Donald is willing to sell out his country for a Trump Tower In Moscow.
Click to expand...

Hmm, weren't you the guy talking about Civil War 2.0 recently???

Yeah, cool "analysis"
 
The Big Dog said:
"Ask which sounds more likely: That a highly decorated military officer invited FBI officials to his office (with no legal counsel)
Click to expand...
Liars often overestimate their ability to handle situations like this, thinking "I don't need my lawyer, I can outsmart the other guy".
in order to tell bold-faced lies? Or, as initially reported, he just forgot details of conversation?"
Click to expand...
You see, a smart person would say "it depends on context".

If it were something along the lines of "what did you have for lunch a month ago", then forgetting some of the details would be understandable. After all, that would be a relatively minor event without anything to really make the details stand out.

Flynn's lies are not in the same category.

Talking to high-level Russian agents is not exactly something that would slip people's minds, especially considering there were already allegations about Russian meddling in the election. Its the type of thing that should have been a reminder that "Oh yeah, they think Trump collaborated with the Ruskies. Hmmm... MAYBE I should spend a couple of minutes thinking about whether anything I did was relevant".

-K. Strassel.
Click to expand...
She is a right-wing opinion writer and Trump toadie. Why should we consider her opinion as particularly convincing?
 
The Big Dog said:
I literally laughed out loud, nice one! Posting some wildly over the top exaggeration and then knocking over the piece of straw so dramatically.

Fantastic.
Click to expand...

Well, the conspiracy theory that McCabe framed Flynn by altering the 302 took a torpedo when Flynn copped a plea, and you haven't plugged the hole. You posted a link to a motion filed by Flynn's lawyers that basically stipulates that the 302 is accurate.
 
Segnosaur said:
You see, a smart person would say "it depends on context".

If it were something along the lines of "what did you have for lunch a month ago", then forgetting some of the details would be understandable. After all, that would be a relatively minor event without anything to really make the details stand out.

Flynn's lies are not in the same category.

Talking to high-level Russian agents is not exactly something that would slip people's minds, especially considering there were already allegations about Russian meddling in the election. Its the type of thing that should have been a reminder that "Oh yeah, they think Trump collaborated with the Ruskies. Hmmm... MAYBE I should spend a couple of minutes thinking about whether anything I did was relevant".


She is a right-wing opinion writer and Trump toadie. Why should we consider her opinion as particularly convincing?
Click to expand...

That is a bit odd, he didn't say that he didn't remember the conversation as you suggest, and moreover, recall that the two people who actually interviewed him did not think he was lying. The claim was that there were inconsistencies, which does not satisfy the knowingly lying requirement.

That is not to say that he didn't **** up, he did, he trusted about of fanatic hold-overs from the Obama administration.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Well, the conspiracy theory that McCabe framed Flynn by altering the 302 took a torpedo when Flynn copped a plea, and you haven't plugged the hole. You posted a link to a motion filed by Flynn's lawyers that basically stipulates that the 302 is accurate.
Click to expand...

relying on concessions from the other side in a document does not 'stipulate" that the whole darn thing is accurate. C'mon..
 
The Big Dog said:
relying on concessions from the other side in a document does not 'stipulate" that the whole darn thing is accurate. C'mon..
Click to expand...

I'll light a candle for you.

7BerTTZ.jpg
 
The Big Dog said:
AMI told the court that “there was nothing sinister” about their actions and refused to concede that their so-called “editorial decisions” were “animated by a desire to support the candidacy of Donald Trump.”

Golly, were they lying then or are they lying now?
Click to expand...

So this is what you're reduced to? Louis CK said he didn't jerk off in front of women, then said he did. Was he lying then or is he lying now?

Also, you're butchering those quotes.

https://docplayer.net/74399095-1-special-motion-to-strike.html

Fourth, even assuming AMI's editorial decision not to run the McDougal story was animated by a desire to support the candidacy of Donald Trump, and did benefit him - which AMI does not concede - it is routine and constitutionally protected for the media to express a political view.
Click to expand...

They argued that even if they had been supporting Trump's candidacy, they're protected by the First Amendment. Is it routine and constitutionally protected for media companies to pay $150,000 so that a story would not be reported?
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
So this is what you're reduced to? Louis CK said he didn't jerk off in front of women, then said he did. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Click to expand...

Insert almost every person accused of a crime : I plead not guilty.

Those same people after getting a plea deal: I did do that actually.

Cain nailed it, there is absolutely nothing odd about this behavior at all. It's almost meme worthy to imply that it would be.
 
Cain said:
So this is what you're reduced to? Louis CK said he didn't jerk off in front of women, then said he did. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Click to expand...
Why am I bothering to further distill something that is so glaringly obvious...?

Person X when first accused: I'm innocent

Person X when confronted with evidence: I'm guilty
​
It's so obvious which is more likely to be true that it's flat out surreal I'm even typing these words.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmmm, McCabe told Flynn not to have counsel present.

McCabe said that the two people who interviewed Flynn did not think he was being evasive, and why would he, he considered them allies.

Until they plunged the knife in with the most frivolous lying to the FBI violation in history.
Click to expand...
If that was his only crime it could have been fought quite easily. The plea deal is a deal to plead guilty to a lesser crime. They had a lot more on him than that.
 
I'm rather amazed that TBD is defending Flynn here, given that Mueller has recommended he get no jail time in gratitude for ratting out The Donald. That's NOT, mind you, for future cooperation, it's what he's ALREADY given them.
 
The Big Dog said:
Curious, I notice that you have not actually actually addressed the hilariously ridiculous and totally gutbustingly specious claim that General Flynn committed:

TREASON

"the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case."

-McCabe.

Sounds like Treason tho!
Click to expand...

Not much gets past you, does it.
 
Trebuchet said:
I'm rather amazed that TBD is defending Flynn here, given that Mueller has recommended he get no jail time in gratitude for ratting out The Donald. That's NOT, mind you, for future cooperation, it's what he's ALREADY given them.
Click to expand...

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s lawyers revealed in court documents filed late Tuesday that Flynn turned over “sweeping categories of documents” from his two companies to the Department of Justice. He “facilitated the production of electronic devices” prior to his plea deal with the government last year for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia's ambassador. The lawyers used their client’s support as the basis to request a sentence with no jail time, and to ask for one year of probation with “minimal conditions of supervision” and 200 hours of community service for Flynn’s sentence. “Gen. Flynn has accepted responsibility for his conduct. He has cooperated extensively with several Department of Justice investigations,” the lawyers wrote. “As the Government has made clear, his cooperation was not grudging or delayed. Rather, it preceded his guilty plea or any threatened indictment and began very shortly after he was first contacted for assistance by the Special Counsel’s Office.” Prosecutors have reportedly agreed that Flynn should not serve time behind bars.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/micha...ments-electronics-before-plea-deal-court-docs
Click to expand...

So much for the argument that Flynn was unfairly coerced.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom