Flynn was framed!!!

HedonistForever's Avatar
Yikes! Miss handling of classified info is rather a big deal.


I agree, it is a big deal but "intent" seems to be built into our code of justice. Now some of us might say it doesn't matter, the law is the law while others take intent into consideration. That's why Donald Trump Jr. isn't in jail right now because as sure as I'm sitting here typing this, he violated the statute that we have discussed her many times that says you can not solicit something of value which can be defined as "information" from a foreign entity to be used in a political campaign.



Yes, I think Hillary did that to, so if Jr. gets a pass, then Hillary gets a pass UNLESS there was different intent. I don't think Jr. knew the law and apparently Mueller decided the same thing. I think Hillary probably did know the law but can that be proven in a court of law? Recently the DOJ dropped the case against McCabe who we know lied to the FBI but apparently Barr thought the case was weak combined with intent to do harm or not and he was absolved of the charge, so far.


Do we think Hillary intended to do harm by collaborating with a foreign government? I haven't seen the evidence that she did. Did she mis-handle the classified information for personal gain? I haven't seen that proof. Did she mis-handle it because she was to lazy to follow the rules thinking the rules just didn't apply to her? I think most likely. She should have been punished, there is no doubt in my mind about that because as you say it was classified information and a price should be paid for that. Barring proof she did it to hurt the US government and it's people, I think that punishment should be something other than jail time. I understand why you and others might feel differently.



Kinda why there are strenuously regulated levels of classification and training classes on it and affidavits signed by people granted access. It also has well defined guidelines and penalties. What's the proposal here? Just say bad kitty?


Nope, there should have been a price to pay, I just don't think jail was that price.


People die because of miss handling of classified info. Hola, habla Benghazi? Notwithstanding what costs could be associated to that are almost incalculable.


Yes, they do and that would absolutely up the ante. So is there any proof that what Hillary did caused the death of our Special Operators visa vie what she did on her phone and computer? I haven't seen that evidence, but her actions outside of her handling some classified information might very well have by having those people where they probably shouldn't have been, why they were there, was action to save them derelict? Those would be things to consider but if the classified information in question had nothing to do with those decisions and I don't know if they did or didn't, that would be up to the DOJ to decide


"paranoia of persons knowing her business". You mean like her superiors, aka the boss, and the American public writ large? It wasn't 'her' business. It was the business of America. If she wanted to have a yahoo or gmail account to trade recipes, so what. Nobody cares how wide her lard-ass is. But transmitting and backing up classified documents from a non-secured server to a public Yahoo account is ludicrous and endangering to the country. Side note: You are aware that the entire Yahoo database of accounts was hacked in that time frame. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I hear yeah. I think, just an opinion, that after decades of people using information against her, she was so paranoid, she didn't want anybody using the decisions she was making as political fodder against her. I'm not excusing what she did, like I said, I think she should have been punished but I have not seen any evidence that she did this for monetary gain ( but her foundation sure as hell did ) or to intentionally hurt the country as in getting even with somebody that had done her wrong. Those would easily be seen as prosecutable.

HedonistForever's Avatar
And BTW, the reporting seems to suggest that Obama was completely aware of the fact that Hillary was using a non-governmental, unsecured server and even contacted Hillary on that server using a pseudonym.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...617-story.html


Obama’s silky lie and FBI bias in the Clinton investigation

Of all the silky lies being told in Washington over the findings of the FBI’s inspector general on the biased culture of those investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server, one lie seems to be ignored:


It’s the silky lie told by then-President Barack Obama.


It may have set the tone for the smarmy intrigue detailed in the FBI inspector general’s damning 500-page report on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.


And Washington is revealed once again as our modern Versailles, a place of courtiers and lickspittles who’d use the Ministry of Justice to serve their ambitions.


Obama told his silky lie when his chosen successor was Hillary Clinton.


Clinton had endangered top secret information by using an unsecured, home-brew email server when she was U.S. secretary of state. Any other American who dared risk top government secrets on a basement server would have faced federal prosecution and prison.


Obama’s lie was told in 2015, when Obama was asked by CBS’ Bill Plante when he learned Mrs. Clinton had used an unsecured email server.


“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama said. He was so silky that you couldn’t even hear his tongue rustling along his teeth.


He waxed on about how his administration was all about “transparency.”


But Obama did not learn about Clinton’s home-brew server like “everybody else.”


According to the inspector general’s report, Obama was in fact one of 13 top government officials communicating with Clinton on her private email server, even as Clinton’s server was targeted by foreign intelligence services.


According to the IG report, before former (and fired) FBI Director James Comey took it upon himself to publicly criticize Clinton (and exonerate her from a criminal charge), a draft of his public address was heavily edited.


It was edited for Hillary Clinton’s benefit, to buttress the case that what she did wasn’t prosecutable.


But Comey’s comments were also edited to protect someone else. The IG report discusses a key paragraph in Comey’s statement summarizing the FBI’s thinking that “hostile actors” had accessed Clinton’s server.


The paragraph, the report said, “referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference was later changed to ‘another senior government official,’ and ultimately was omitted.”


Just chew on this apiece: How could Hillary Clinton ever be prosecuted without implicating Obama, who emailed her using a pseudonym?


Obama might have been portrayed as a victim of her use of a private server. She used that server to hide her dealings with the controversial Clinton Foundation from congressional inquiry. She should have been prosecuted.


But then, two things would have happened.


Her campaign would have fallen apart immediately, and along with it, Obama’s legacy.


The Obama White House, the senior pro-Obama bosses of the FBI and just about all the political suits thought Clinton would be our next president.


And who wants to anger the next ruler? Careers were at stake, promotions, perks, power, just as it was back in the day, in old Versailles.


You should read the report for yourself. Ignore the spin that there was no bias found at Obama’s DOJ and FBI.


It crawls with bias. Deals were cut. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton was shielded from a federal grand jury. Witnesses were allowed to sit with her during questioning. Comey had already decided to clear her before the investigation was complete.


Pro-Clinton FBI investigator Peter Strzok was warned by his lover, pro-Clinton FBI lawyer Lisa Page, that since Clinton would surely win, it wouldn’t be wise to anger the new boss.


When Page panicked, worrying that Trump might actually win the White House in 2016, Strzok told her not to worry.


“No. No, he won’t,” Strzok texted her on an FBI phone. “We’ll stop it.”


By then, he was helping lead a new FBI investigation, the one investigating Trump for possible collusion with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.


Special counsel Robert Mueller, to his credit, dumped Strzok from the probe when Strzok’s anti-Trump passions became clear. But the Mueller probe has been damaged by the IG report.







Jacuzzme's Avatar
He only canned Strzok because he got outed from the texts.
Why_Yes_I_Do's Avatar
I agree, it is a big deal but "intent" seems to be built into our code of justice. Now some of us might say it doesn't matter, the law is the law while others take intent into consideration. That's why Donald Trump Jr. isn't in jail right now because as sure as I'm sitting here typing this, he violated the statute that we have discussed her many times that says you can not solicit something of value which can be defined as "information" from a foreign entity to be used in a political campaign... Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Intent is not part of classified information governance.
Don Jr. did not solicit. He was offered and more importantly, setup, intentionally.

...Yes, I think Hillary did that to, so if Jr. gets a pass, then Hillary gets a pass UNLESS there was different intent. I don't think Jr. knew the law and apparently Mueller decided the same thing. I think Hillary probably did know the law but can that be proven in a court of law? Recently the DOJ dropped the case against McCabe who we know lied to the FBI but apparently Barr thought the case was weak combined with intent to do harm or not and he was absolved of the charge, so far... Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Hillary paid for it through a law firm and had collusion via the US government, who as you may remember was headed by Obama at the time. McCabe is sadly a wait and see. Recall, they did not pursue charges "at that time". They did not clear him or preclude anyone from pursuing at a later time. It has been about a year of ongoing investigation into that related matter. Either Barr that that case was weak or Barr thought the case needed more spicing or Barr wanted to catch the bigger fish. Time will tell..

...Do we think Hillary intended to do harm by collaborating with a foreign government? I haven't seen the evidence that she did. Did she mis-handle the classified information for personal gain? I haven't seen that proof. Did she mis-handle it because she was to lazy to follow the rules thinking the rules just didn't apply to her? I think most likely. She should have been punished, there is no doubt in my mind about that because as you say it was classified information and a price should be paid for that. Barring proof she did it to hurt the US government and it's people, I think that punishment should be something other than jail time. I understand why you and others might feel differently... Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Intent is not the standard at play. Comey made that up out of whole cloth. The word is not in the statutes. Though both Treason and Sedition may well be peripheral issues here. The standard is handling of the information and safe guarding thereof. But even going to "intent", even loosely speaking is provable from the first time a FOIA request came back from State Department as no responsive records on their system. There is the intent.

...I hear yeah. I think, just an opinion, that after decades of people using information against her, she was so paranoid, she didn't want anybody using the decisions she was making as political fodder against her... Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Here's a novel approach for that, don't go into PUBLIC office and seek professional help for paranoia. In her case, institutionalization seems the best approach.

I'm not excusing what she did, like I said, I think she should have been punished but I have not seen any evidence that she did this for monetary gain ( but her foundation sure as hell did ) or to intentionally hurt the country as in getting even with somebody that had done her wrong. Those would easily be seen as prosecutable. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
It was all about power. From power comes monetary gain. EX: No power (she lost) Clinton Foundation (no more donations). She couldn't care less about hurting anyone at any time or place - if it gives her power.
Hotrod511's Avatar
What’s a “Moran”? Originally Posted by bambino
Turdsmoker only has a 3rd grade education
Hotrod511's Avatar
No, it still doesn't matter.

The narrative involved is Flynn's. He confessed.

The only thing we know about the new evidence is the defense attorney claims it shows Flynn was set-up.

Not sure how Flynn calling the Russian embassy, discussing the sanctions with the ambassador, and then lying about discussing the sanctions to the FBI is a setup. He did all that himself.
The call was recorded. No indication there was or was not a Logan violation.
Moot point. He was charged with lying about the subject he discussed, not the details of the subject he discussed.
He admitted lying to Pence and the FBI.

Hope you knew someone would point out you're the one denying the facts as they are currently known. You're naysaying the fact he admitted guilt.
Flynn is trying to pull his plea because his new attorney thinks they've found a technicality.

I guess we'll see. If he gets off he gets off.

In the meantime, Flynn remains a convicted felon.

The only triumph so far is justice.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Is that the best you can come up with Munchy? why don't you tell us about one of your fantasy's about Peter Pan and Tinkerbell
have another drink while you're at it
Munchmasterman's Avatar
I don't need to come up with anything. He has already been convicted.

You came up with nothing other than doing what you know.
Drinking more.
And since you already live in fantasy land, there's nothing I can add to that
.



Is that the best you can come up with Munchy? why don't you tell us about one of your fantasy's about Peter Pan and Tinkerbell
have another drink while you're at it
Originally Posted by Hotrod511
HoeHummer's Avatar
When is he up for parole?
When is he up for parole? Originally Posted by HoeHummer
He hasn't even been sentenced yet you fake Canuck. If you are going to discuss US politics please get yous information straight.
bambino's Avatar
He hasn't even been sentenced yet you fake Canuck. If you are going to discuss US politics please get yous information straight. Originally Posted by eccielover
Looks like he’ll never get sentenced. The Judge kept pushing it back without the current revelations. It’s all a moot point anyways. If the Judge doesn’t throw the case out, Trump will surely pardon him.
He hasn't even been sentenced yet you fake Canuck. If you are going to discuss US politics please get yous information straight. Originally Posted by eccielover
Horsehummer is playing you to increase his post count. He knows.

Looks like he’ll never get sentenced. The Judge kept pushing it back without the current revelations. It’s all a moot point anyways. If the Judge doesn’t throw the case out, Trump will surely pardon him. Originally Posted by bambino
Judge Sullivan needs to drag the FBI (and DOJ) in and ask "What the fuck?" The Mea Culpa won't come from Strzok until his neck is on the block. The judge needs to put it there so he can fess up!
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
Looks like he’ll never get sentenced. The Judge kept pushing it back without the current revelations. It’s all a moot point anyways. If the Judge doesn’t throw the case out, Trump will surely pardon him. Originally Posted by bambino
is judge emmit sullivan having 2nd thoughts about the flynn's case?

he has clearly delayed sentencing inspite of the support for the prosecution.

the new stuff coming out might be hard for the judge to ignore fbi misconduct.

DOJ can reverse this case by dropping it if they wanted to.
(emily litella moment... "never mind")
bambino's Avatar
is judge emmit sullivan having 2nd thoughts about the flynn's case?


he has clearly delayed sentencing inspite of the support for the prosecution.


the new stuff comming out might be hard for the judge to ignore fbi misconduct.


DOJ can reverse this case by dropping it if they wanted to. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Barr appointed a Special Counsel to review the case. It will circle back to the Mueller team and their malfeasance too.
HedonistForever's Avatar
The shoelaces came untied when we found out the FBI altered a document to keep the Carter Page persecution going and now the first shoe has dropped with evidence that Flynn was set up. True, that doesn't alter the fact that he plead guilty to lying so the judge probably will not exonerate Flynn but just might give him a new trial and ask the DOJ in light of this new evidence, do you really want to prosecute him again? The second shoe will be the Durham report. I can't see any way in hell somebody at the FBI doesn't have to answer to this in a court of law.


No matter what happens, Flynn isn't going to jail but somebody in the FBI just might. As one attorney put it, everybody at the FBI involved in this fiasco should be made to hire lawyers to defend them selves and force them to spend their money doing so like they forced Flynn to do.
HedonistForever's Avatar
Intent is not part of classified information governance.

Until the DOJ or head of the FBI decides it is. Who is going to argue otherwise?


Don Jr. did not solicit. He was offered and more importantly, setup, intentionally.


Yes it was offered and as soon as he said "Yeah, I'd like to have that", he solicited it. If it was dropped on his desk with no comment by either party, that would not be solicitation. Do you think accepting the offer of sex from a street walker isn't going to get you a charge of solicitation?



Solicit:
to try to obtain



It could easily be presented as as "he tried to obtain it"


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/11/06/what-did-donald-trump-jr-ask-for-at-that-meeting-the-russian-lawyer-just-spoke-out/


Bloomberg Politics has just published a remarkable interview with the Russian lawyer who famously met with President Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign chairman at Trump Tower in June 2016. There are a number of lingering questions about the account, and healthy skepticism about the messenger and her message is certainly warranted.


However, this is a notable moment, because it would appear to constitute a direct allegation that Donald Trump Jr. actively requested Russian assistance in harming Hillary Clinton, as opposed to having been merely receptive to such assistance.


Granted, that's just the lawyers side of the story but I'd bet a dollar that if Mueller really wanted Don. Jr., could have made a case for solicitation.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/u...stigation.html


A provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, Section 30121 of Title 52, broadly outlaws donations or other contributions of a “thing of value” by any foreigner in connection with an American election — or even an express or implied promise to take such action, directly or indirectly.


Depending on how a grand jury interprets the facts the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has gathered about the two Trump Tower meetings, it could find that the foreigners violated that law — and that Donald Trump



Jr. conspired in that offense.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/p...-be-prosecuted


In the collusion section of Mueller’s 448-page report, the special counsel said they'd contemplated prosecuting Donald Trump Jr. over the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian attorney who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. But the special counsel ultimately decided it would be difficult to prove that Don Jr. acted “with general knowledge of the illegality” of his conduct, which included possible violations of campaign finance and contribution laws. Mueller’s report stated that there would be a “high burden to establish a culpable mental state” in Trump Jr.

In other words "did he intend to break the law if he didn't know the law existed". I think they could have easily prosecuted Jr. they just decided it wouldn't help the broader case.

Hillary paid for it through a law firm and had collusion via the US government, who as you may remember was headed by Obama at the time. McCabe is sadly a wait and see. Recall, they did not pursue charges "at that time". They did not clear him or preclude anyone from pursuing at a later time. It has been about a year of ongoing investigation into that related matter. Either Barr that that case was weak or Barr thought the case needed more spicing or Barr wanted to catch the bigger fish. Time will tell..


That's why I ended with "so far".



Intent is not the standard at play. Comey made that up out of whole cloth. The word is not in the statutes.


I made the same argument at the time and yet it stood and who was going to bring a case against Comey saying he mis-interpreted the law?


Though both Treason and Sedition may well be peripheral issues here. The standard is handling of the information and safe guarding thereof. But even going to "intent", even loosely speaking is provable from the first time a FOIA request came back from State Department as no responsive records on their system. There is the intent.




Here's a novel approach for that, don't go into PUBLIC office and seek professional help for paranoia. In her case, institutionalization seems the best approach.


It was all about power. From power comes monetary gain. EX: No power (she lost) Clinton Foundation (no more donations). She couldn't care less about hurting anyone at any time or place - if it gives her power. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Can't argue with that.