billsfan1959

FIFY

I would but with you it's not "1 + 1 = 2," it's "How do I feel about 1 + 1 = 2?" "Would I feel better if it equals 3?" If the truth doesn't validate your feelings, then you just create "your own truth" So, it's really pointless.

Hey, could you tell us the one again about Trump and Russian collusion? I love that story.

Because I don't like what I'm feeling, the whole world needs to know how I am feeling, and somebody needs to pay for making me feel this way....

This will go over well....

Did you just use "CNN" and "Facts" in the same breath?

You know, Comey couldn't wait to write memorandums after every single contact with Trump - and then leak the information in one form or another. I wonder if he or the Bureau would be kind enough to share the memos he wrote after meetings with Obama. Because being the non-partisan professional that Comey was, I'm sure he must have written them....right?

From an anecdotal standpoint only, almost all of the people, in my sphere, arguing against reopening have been receivng paychecks this entire time.

From Susan Rice's email: "Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with. Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied 'potentially.' He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of comrnunication is unusual.” 1) Crossfire Razor was a counterintelligence investigation of Michael Flynn opened in August of 2016 under the "umbrella" case of Crossfire hurricane. The case was opened for almost 5 months when, on 04 Jan 2017, the day before this meeting, the Case Agent submitted a closing memo to the file stating that, over the 5 month investigation, there had been no information developed indicating Flynn had done anything wrong, that Flynn was no longer a viable target as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case, and that there was no information on which to predicate further investigative effort. Yet, Comey tells Obama that there may be a potential problem with trusting Flynn with sensitive information. 2) Apparently, ignoring his own investigation showing no evidence whatsoever that Flynn could not be trusted with sensitive information, Comey justifies his concern by citing "frequent" and "unusual level" of contact between Flynn and the Kislyak. At the time of this meeting, on 5 Jan 2017, the FBI was aware of communications between Flynn and Kislyak on one day, 29 Dec 2016. Yeah, I'm sure everything this group was doing with Flynn was "by the book."

Exactly. If you believe the memo, not only did Obama begin the meeting with stressing that everything be done "by the book," but he then went on to stress it again before talking about anything substantive. And, Comey, the head of the FBI, rather than be insulted he would actually have to be told such a thing, twice, instead begins his response to Obama by confirming that his Agency is proceeding "by the book." Either (1) they had some real issues with people doing things they shouldn't have been doing or (2) this memo is complete bulls**t. Actually, the two options are not mutually exclusive and my guess is that both are true.

When you take the time to read enough to actually acquaint yourself with the facts of the case, get back to me. I can't think of a greater waste of my time than arguing with someone whose perspective is from an admitted position of willful ignorance.

I have my own software I developed and use on a daily basis organizing and analyzing voluminous case files. I won't go into it here. Just message me if you have any interest.

Thanks DR. Just out of curiosity, do you use any particular software to organize and analyze documents when researching any particular topic or issue of interest?

Shhhhhh.... Don't you know, Intelligence reports that were never written and nobody can produce show that Trump knew about the virus in 2017. Or maybe before he even took office....

This is a good article. The Logan Act was never in play. Nor was FARA. If there was a legitimate, prosecutable violation of either, they would have been pursued. That Rosenstein continued to use it as justification for Mueller's team to target Flynn in August of 2017 is nothing short of abuse of power. The fact that the FBI did not open a criminal investigation prior to the interview of Flynn on 24 Jan 2017 (Or at anytime), and the manner in which that interview was conducted tells us all we need to know about where the FBI and the DOJ stood, in terms of the legitimacy of any violations of the Logan Act.

Right, not to mention creepy. It would be like dining with Hannibal Lecter...

The thoughts in this post do not seem reality based. Just an objective observation.

Wouldn't it save them a lot of time and money in development to realize the same thing can be achieved, with the same amount of risk, by just lifting your mask when you want to put food in your mouth?

I have no problem saying it. I already said his current accepted plea is guilty. I have said it in a number of posts. That was never my point. Apparently your inability to comprehend what you read is only surpassed by your inability to participate in conversations that require more than a room temperature IQ. He'll never read it. And if he did, he wouldn't understand it... He crawls out of his hole every now and then only to parrot something somebody else says, gets intellectually slam dunked, and then crawls back into his hole. It's kind of like that wack a mole game.

It's always amusing when you try to engage with adults...

The fact that you and BillZStime are the only intellectual support for SectionC3 should be enough for him to understand just how wrong he is. I know that alone would make me want to consider a fish tank cleaner cocktail - or at least withdraw from the argument out of sheer embarrassment.

It could be... It could be... It might be....It appears.... Your language tells me you haven't read a single document filed in regard to this issue. That is confirmed by statements earlier in this thread in which you admitted that you don't really know the details of this case. Maybe you should do a little reading to acquaint yourself of the facts before arguing. I take it you are familiar with that concept? However, you don't really care to know the facts, do you?. The only thing that is clearly important to you is that Flynn is, at the moment, "guilty in the eyes of the law." That is the sum total of every argument you have put forth. Behavior is a function of consequence, meaning, we do things for a reason. That the most important thing to you is that Flynn is "guilty in the eyes of the law" says that you need for him to be "guilty" to support everything you have believed over the last three years. You have proven this in the level of semantic gymnastics you have gone through in order to blur the distinction between guilt and innocence. You didn't do that for us, you did that for you. It alleviates the cognitive dissonance you might experience in allowing such concepts as right and wrong, or justice and injustice to enter your thought processes. When Flynn was charged with making false official statements, I didn't give it much thought, outside of I felt the underlying investigation was unjustified. However, my stance at the time was, if he lied, he lied - and the consequences are what they are. I never posted anything about Flynn until recently, when I read some of the information being released from the prosecution. There were some things that really disturbed me, so, I downloaded and read everything I could to get a better understanding of the facts. Like many here, I don't give a S**t about "guilty in the eyes of the law" when I see injustice and wrongdoing in the process that brought an individual to that point. It is more important to me that when the FBI conducts an investigation, it is based on legitimate and truthful information, and free from political motivations. It is more important to me that the Agents involved in an investigation of this type not have histories of severe bias. It is more important to me that the FBI not ignore DOJ and in-house reccommendations and guidelines in the manner in which they set up the interview because it helps achieve the stated goal of the Agents conducting the interview to "get him to lie." It is more important to me that Agents not be allowed to change documents to reflect what they want rather than the truth. It is more important to me that the government turn over all information relevant to the underlying investigation and charges before a guilty plea, not over two years later - and information is still being released. It is more important to me that the lack of the knowledge of that information played a central role in forcing someone to plead guilty to avoid worse consequences, particularly for his family. It is more important to me that the weight of the US Government not be used to intentionally set a man up to be criminally charged for political purposes. But, hey, you go ahead and remain ignorant of the facts and cling to "he's guilty in the eyes of the law" if it helps you sleep at night.

And I'm sorry for anyone you give legal representation to, but that's the way it goes. I guess that is how we convict the innocent....

I truly hope you are not an actual attorney. Because, if you are, it takes your stance on this issue to a rarely achieved height of stupidity.