The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're already admitting you're wrong and I was right. Expulsions are different than sanctions. Two different things entirely. 

No. Sanctions can take many forms from military, to monitory, to diplomatic punitive measures; there are a lot of tools in that toolbox.

Sanctions (def) : the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law; may also include economic or military coercive measures adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication.

The Obama sanctions in their entirety were:
 

“All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions,” the president said in a statement.

In addition to hitting two Russian intelligence agencies, three companies and four individual intelligence officers banning them from travel and business with U.S. companies or individuals, Obama ordered 35 Russian operatives posted at diplomatic facilities in Washington and San Francisco to leave. The president asked the State Department to bar Russians from entering two Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York that were used to gather intelligence, according to his statement. And Obama’s Treasury Department barred U.S. business with two Russians accused of cyber-theft of money and data

It is clear that when Flynn was discussing sanctions it was in reference to items in this sanctions list. Or as Flynn so elegantly put it "So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff"  I don't think anyone was limiting the reference to a single particular item comprised in the sanctions otherwise Trump would not have fired him for lying about his denial of having sanctions discussions to Pence.

Saying otherwise is really reaching for semantic sophistry.

 

The transcript proves this, as does your couching above: 

 

 

Flynn didn't say "don't do anything" about sanctions -- which was the claim. He said to only be reciprocal with Moscow's expulsions. That's above board, entirely legal, and in no way was a lie. 

Just wow. Flynn absolutely was asking Russia not to take actions whether he steered them towards reciprocal actions or otherwise does not make it any less true.

Flynn: " I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?"
 

 

Some here think I am some kind of rank and file Dem or liberal. Not so fast, but I am one of the college educated individuals who polls show largely do not support Trump.
 

I am a conservative or a centrist that leans right who despises Trump. Grew up in New Jersey and he was a con back then, and is still a con today and that is the source of my angst seeing him capitalize and take advantage of the worst elements of our human nature. The guy is dirty and if they ever wrest his tax returns out of his cold dead hands his sycophants may finally see the light and give up their messianic devotion to the man.

I am not someone who falls for the cult of personality I am pretty meh with Biden, thought that Obama was wishy-washy, and the Clintons were dirty since White Water. I think everyone in DC is dirty, it is just a matter of degree. 

Merriam Webster:

Definition of demagogue

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

The GOP needs to rethink what their platform stands for and get behind someone I can back without throwing up in my own mouth. They have drifted waaaay too far towards the conspiracy theories and deep state nonsense to cover for Trump's clumsy financial and political maneuvering. Follow the money, and then follow the money again.

I am not for a liberal view world either as I think we would all be special-interests and politically-corrected to death. I do think we need to better limit executive branch power as our House ceases to function effectively when both the Senate and the Executive branch are in lock step and have too much control. Folks may be feeling fine now, but if the Senate goes Democrat majority and Biden wins then it will be conservatives who feel disenfranchised. The Executive branch power-grab after 9-11 and FISA court non-sense probably needs overhauling, but once power is obtained it is rarely given back freely.

I actually think we need to better support our law enforcement, but there needs to be more transparency and justice when they use excessive force on people of any color. I am not for idiotic marches but folks have the right to protest. I certainly do not condone opportunistic rioting although I have driven thru Portland and know folks that work there and it is a lot of hype for nothing - about a 2-3 block radius where the idiots gather in a cycle of meaningless confrontation. I am against knee-jerk reactions and throwing money at issues. Racial tensions and disparity exists, but I have no clue if we can every fix those in a way that makes everyone happy, but I am for rational policy changes and enforcement that have a real chance to drive progress when there are issues.

I have learned some things on this board and they have helped me better understand how people have shaped their opinions, but I caution against the echo chamber of social media - I don't even use Facebook (just the Chat) and Twitter... please, I have an account that follows my favorite sports and players. But I like to go to the source documents and read a lot and folks here have challenged me to read even more things. For that I am grateful.

Too many individuals who have worked closely with Trump, who he has handpicked for apparently revolving door roles in his administration, have come away saying the same thing. The man is unfit for office. I stand by that sentiment, and hope we find better leadership for the GOP some day. As one conservative friend told me, " It is too bad the GOP went with Trump. If they had someone who was more stable, likable, and competent Biden would not have a chance".

 

 

You're literally years behind the curve on this story. 

 

****************************************

 

I find it encouraging that Mueller did find someone in Obama's circle that was guilty of FARA violations too and referred the individual for investigation follow-up to the DOJ and FBI, as it shows he was just going where ever the investigation lead sans partisan ideologies. When Mueller was assigned to the probe he was largely supported as a pick from both sides of the aisle because of his non-partisan reputation.


 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by WideNine

[Deranged Rhino]

21 minutes ago, WideNine said:

No. Sanctions can take many forms from military, to monitory, to diplomatic punitive measures; there are a lot of tools in that toolbox.

 

You accurately point out that context matters before. You can't ignore it here because the facts suddenly don't say what you want them to. Sanctions, specifically the financial sanctions against Putin and his inner circle, were what the media and every single IC official (including Clapper and Brennan) and Mueller's team accused Flynn of discussing. They were specific in the charging documents and their media appearances. The expulsions came after, literally a day before this call took place. 

 

Because the expulsions were designed to trigger this exact call. Obama knew Russia didn't hack the DNC or tilt the election. He made this move KNOWING that diplomacy 101 demands that Flynn do exactly what he did on that call. He also KNEW that his team would leak it and use the media to frame it as devious/illegal/treasonous when it was anything but. 

 

That's the fact pattern. And it's now backed by a paper trail that's reams thick. 

 

25 minutes ago, WideNine said:

It is clear that when Flynn was discussing sanctions it was in reference to items in this sanctions list. Or as Flynn so elegantly put it "So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff"  I don't think anyone was limiting the reference to a single particular item comprised in the sanctions otherwise 

 

You need to read it again, closer. With the context above in mind. You're wrong here. All the way. 

 

27 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Just wow. Flynn absolutely was asking Russia not to take actions whether he steered them towards reciprocal actions or otherwise does not make it any less true.

Flynn: " I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?"

 

And this is why you're wrong. You're conflating two things, ignoring context, and then filling in the blanks with fiction pushed on you by proven liars and manipulators. We have the receipts now. 

 

"Make it reciprocal" was specifically a reference to diplomatic expulsions. This is clear from the rest of Flynn's comments which you cut off. If Russia escalated, the entire Moscow embassy would be useless (meaning SPIES not DIPLOMATS). That would make it harder to work together with Russia -- FIGHTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS. The war against ISIS was raging at that time. US and Russian troops were in theater together in Syria and clear lines of communications were necessary to avoid tragedy. 

 

Again, CONTEXT matters. Instead of trying so hard to repeat information from 2 years ago pushed on you by proven liars, maybe take a new look at the documents with fresh eyes. You might be surprised what you see. 

 

30 minutes ago, WideNine said:

I am a conservative or a centrist that leans right who despises Trump

 

Trump is irrelevant to this topic for me. As are your political views. Because what we are talking about crosses the aisle. You should absolutely care about this issue if you despise Trump, because he has all the power (and more) which Obama's administration used and abused to try to overturn the results of a legal election. This isn't about politics. It's about right and wrong. It's about whether or not we want to live in an actual democratic republic where the people have a say, or merely the illusion of one where the people's voice doesn't really count. 

 

You hate Trump. Cool. That's not the point. I bet you love this country. And if you do, then this kind of abuse -- an outgoing president weaponizing the intelligence services, the FBI, and the media to target his political enemy and try to subvert an election -- is nothing short of a coup. If you turn a blind eye to it simply because "Trump", then you're only assuring that this kind of power will be used again. 

 

Maybe next time it'll be used by an administration you despise -- and you'll have no ground to stand on when you try to protest. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

The federal government has the ability to crush a person. Flynn was being bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution all due to false prosecution of the General by the feds. We all know and can easily say that he should have plead not guilty to the nonsense charges. Easy for us to say. Not so easy for the person being charged. 

I wonder if the E&O insurance will pay him, if it will be a government payment, or if they will personally sue the individuals who were part of #FrameFlynn? 

Whatever General Flynn gets in monetary compensation is well deserved.

[Buffalo_Gal]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You accurately point out that context matters before. You can't ignore it here because the facts suddenly don't say what you want them to. Sanctions, specifically the financial sanctions against Putin and his inner circle, were what the media and every single IC official (including Clapper and Brennan) and Mueller's team accused Flynn of discussing. They were specific in the charging documents and their media appearances. The expulsions came after, literally a day before this call took place. 

 

Because the expulsions were designed to trigger this exact call. Obama knew Russia didn't hack the DNC or tilt the election. He made this move KNOWING that diplomacy 101 demands that Flynn do exactly what he did on that call. He also KNEW that his team would leak it and use the media to frame it as devious/illegal/treasonous when it was anything but. 

 

That's the fact pattern. And it's now backed by a paper trail that's reams thick. 

 

 

You need to read it again, closer. With the context above in mind. You're wrong here. All the way. 

 

 

And this is why you're wrong. You're conflating two things, ignoring context, and then filling in the blanks with fiction pushed on you by proven liars and manipulators. We have the receipts now. 

 

"Make it reciprocal" was specifically a reference to diplomatic expulsions. This is clear from the rest of Flynn's comments which you cut off. If Russia escalated, the entire Moscow embassy would be useless (meaning SPIES not DIPLOMATS). That would make it harder to work together with Russia -- FIGHTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS. The war against ISIS was raging at that time. US and Russian troops were in theater together in Syria and clear lines of communications were necessary to avoid tragedy. 

 

Again, CONTEXT matters. Instead of trying so hard to repeat information from 2 years ago pushed on you by proven liars, maybe take a new look at the documents with fresh eyes. You might be surprised what you see. 

 

 

Trump is irrelevant to this topic for me. As are your political views. Because what we are talking about crosses the aisle. You should absolutely care about this issue if you despise Trump, because he has all the power (and more) which Obama's administration used and abused to try to overturn the results of a legal election. This isn't about politics. It's about right and wrong. It's about whether or not we want to live in an actual democratic republic where the people have a say, or merely the illusion of one where the people's voice doesn't really count. 

 

You hate Trump. Cool. That's not the point. I bet you love this country. And if you do, then this kind of abuse -- an outgoing president weaponizing the intelligence services, the FBI, and the media to target his political enemy and try to subvert an election -- is nothing short of a coup. If you turn a blind eye to it simply because "Trump", then you're only assuring that this kind of power will be used again. 

 

Maybe next time it'll be used by an administration you despise -- and you'll have no ground to stand on when you try to protest. 

I have said it before, I'll say it again... you have the patience of Job.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Wellllllllllllllllll I am trying to be polite. 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

We all knew this (the circular reporting and using those reports as validation). I never saw the Nancy blurb:
 

 

[Alaska Darin]

17 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I wonder if the E&O insurance will pay him, if it will be a government payment, or if they will personally sue the individuals who were part of #FrameFlynn? 

Whatever General Flynn gets in monetary compensation is well deserved.

Here's to hoping he goes after the MSM et al and they have to pay out big.

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I wonder how the conversations that John Kerry (when he was out of office) had with the Iranians would be viewed by the Left here in comparison to Mike Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador? 

 

Well, for one, it's completely different; Kerry is a Democrat in favor with his party.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Koko78

[Buffalo_Gal]

21 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Here's to hoping he goes after the MSM et al and they have to pay out big.

oooh That would be lovely.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You must then take context into consideration. A guilty plea was forced on Flynn when the FBI threatened to go after his son and newborn grandson. Add to that he was drained of financial resources (sold his house) and, most importantly, the guilty plea allowed Flynn to spring his CI trap of which we are still reaping the rewards in the form of documents. 

 

And of course -- this pressure was all applied by an FBI/DOJ/CIA looking to hang him out to dry on falsified/fake charges. 

 

Context is key. 

 

 

Not even the FBI thinks Flynn lied. This is not an accurate representation of the facts now in record. 

 

 

We now know for a fact the FBI/DOJ/IC falsified evidence and paid/worked with an actual Russian spy deemed a threat to national security to frame the General and Trump with phony charges, using the media to spin it. 

 

Again, you're years behind in what you know about this case. Years. 

 

 

Evidence proves you wrong. Mueller and his team knew BEFORE he started his probe that "there was no there there". They knew it was a cooked investigation with no hope of finding dirt. That's why they organized a perjury trap investigation instead. 

 

You clearly do not know Mueller's record. 

 

 

Wrong again. We learned through Stone's trial he never had a backdoor into Wikileaks. He got all his information from open source news stories and lied about having a Wikileaks connection. 

 

Again, facts are stubborn things and you're clinging to long disproven information as if they're real. They're not. 

 

 

And RR and Barr said didn't happen. You're batting close to .000 so far on what you think you know about this case. 

 

 

Not a single Trump person was indicted with anything having to do with Russia or the 2016 election. Not one. Yet we have a guilty plea for an Obama DOJ attorney who admits to falsifying evidence. 

 

Scoreboard is 0-1. 

 

 

Plus, Flynn never saw what the FBI agents originally said he'd said when he spoke to them the 1st time.

 

So, he was told (falsely) that what he told the FBI initially wasn't true (though he actually was truthful per all accounts recorded immediately after his "interview") which basically made him believe he'd inadvertently perjured himself per the limited & false information he had available to him.  He also was being told they were going to go after his kid if he didn't admit to the perjury charge.

 

So, he was led to believe his recollection of events was incorrect (though, for not having notes in front of him, it was incredibly accurate) & therefore believed he had effectively lied/perjured himself.  So, there's a bit of sophistry in claiming he "admitted he lied."

 

And this is all VERY enlightening and shows that those who claim the deck is stacked against the little guy might be closer to the truth than any of us want to realize because General Flynn is nearly as far from a "little guy" as anyone in this country can be and the full weight of the system fell on his head.

 

(Please make corrections if that isn't quite accurate.)

[Dr. Who]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Plus, Flynn never saw what the FBI agents originally said he'd said when he spoke to them the 1st time.

 

So, he was told (falsely) that what he told the FBI initially wasn't true (though he actually was truthful per all accounts recorded immediately after his "interview") which basically made him believe he'd inadvertently perjured himself per the limited & false information he had available to him.  He also was being told they were going to go after his kid if he didn't admit to the perjury charge.

 

So, he was led to believe his recollection of events was incorrect (though, for not having notes in front of him, it was incredibly accurate) & therefore believed he had effectively lied/perjured himself.  So, there's a bit of sophistry in claiming he "admitted he lied."

 

And this is all VERY enlightening and shows that those who claim the deck is stacked against the little guy might be closer to the truth than any of us want to realize because General Flynn is nearly as far from a "little guy" as anyone in this country can be and the full weight of the system fell on his head.

 

(Please make corrections if that isn't quite accurate.)

It really is exceedingly sinister and the fact that the usual suspect knuckleheads keep repeating that Flynn plead guilty only proves that they are the kind of dopes who would accept a Soviet style show trial as legitimate.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Context is important. My point was that the history of FARA infractions show that convictions are rarely enforceable even where warranted. 

 

Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court. If he did that, he would have had options to appeal if he lost in court. By agreeing to all the charges levied against him, Flynn created the current cluster and appellate consternation with Barr's reversal efforts. I am speaking purely of legal strategy, not vague things like right or wrongness of actions or politicians.

 

Mueller clearly was applying leverage on Flynn (that Flynn conveniently provided by lying) to see if there were any connections he had that were germane to their investigation of Russian meddling. This is a common tactic from law enforcement. You go after the little fish with leverage to see if it leads to bigger fish and it has been used to great effect against organized crime and it can work when dismantling Russian influence campaigns as well. You are trying to connect the dots to see where they lead and determine if anyone has been compromised to a degree where they need to be exposed/removed from a role at a minimum, or sentenced in court.

 

This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again.

 

Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack so parroting Don's political witch hunt nonsense is more than a bit ridiculous when the both sides of the isle wanted to see that Mueller report.

 

The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks, or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation. On the flip side the politicians in the GOP camp wanted the report so they could downplay the Russian meddling and influence on the election and clear their President and party of any perception of impropriety.

 

Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down. It is just how everyone wants to interpret the impact of the findings post mortem.

 

Back to Mueller:

He did not feel there were any connections from Flynn that were germane to the Russian meddling investigation he was charged with pursuing and that Flynn cooperated with the probe. Mueller asked for leniency from the court for the charges levied against Flynn in the plea deal - those were my reasons for saying I think he should have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Not that Flynn didn't do the things he swore he did under oath, just that he cooperated and deserved leniency.

 

 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with your point about context.  
 

I own small business and can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by well-intentioned people “you can do that” or “you don’t have to worry about that” or “you’re a small business owner you can do whatever you like” (obviously in the context of employment decisions and general ethical business management). 
 

What that all really means is that assuming you’re following the rules and regulations set forth by the State, you’re good to go.  That’s true, but with a caveat:  you must be prepared to put your business interests on hold and be willing to defend yourself at what likely will be a substantial cost in the event a complaint is lodged against you.  Certainly there can come a time when you analyze the cost, consider your options and settle to move on. You can also most definitely prevail, but it’s important to know that while it costs you $$$$$$$$, it costs the people you are working with on the side of the state nothing.  That’s not a critique on the investigators btw, just an honest fact that plays into it all.  
 

If General Flynn plead guilty, served his sentence and we all went about our business, it would have just been another story of a rogue politician have dipped his toe in the pool of stupidity.  
 

That’s not what happened, and in considering the DOJs decision to shut the case down in its entirety, it seems fairly clear to me that it amounted to malicious and unfounded prosecution.  When General Flynn was faced with complete and total financial devastation, he chose to plead.  When he saw a light at the end of the tunnel, he chose to try and undo what was done. It is very true that when he chose to plead, he might well have fought the government and drawn a line in the sand, all while the meter is spinning furiously and he’s ultimately getting the bill.  
 

As for Mueller and political nut squeezing, sure, it’s done and of course it’s part of the process.  It’s one reason I believe that when faced with questions by law enforcement in a criminal matter, it’s always best to say nothing at all.  The reality is that the law—-in whatever form you encounter it, can range from righteous and just to, well, George Floyd.  
 

If you’re the bad guy and your nuts get squeezed (El Chapo, for instance) the average guy on the street doesn’t say much. If, however, you’re the good guy and trying to ward off the leviathan, well, you’re on an island and the decisions get much more difficult.  
 

As for Herr Mueller’s time on the job, that’s relevant, but not necessarily from the perspective that he’s any more credible than anyone else.  To be completely honest, after watching him at the Herr Mueller Dog N Pony Show and Russian Rodeo and listening to him attempt to explain the outcome of his investigation, I think the people of this great country are much safer investigatorily when he’s retired and fly fishing in Montana.  
 

So..context.  The DOJ moving to dismiss and Mueller saying a whole lot of nothing about nothing resulting in nothing leads me back to where I started. 
 

I appreciate the feedback, have a good weekend. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

Ok, I think it’s clear I am a fan of @Buffalo_Gal.  I think she can disappear people, wring the neck of a chicken just after felling a sycamore tree and still contribute a ton to the board.  
 

However, sharing a link from a Greek that is all in Italian though—I can’t have it.  I’m insecure enough that I’m sitting here wondering why I can’t speak Italian?  Then I see @Foxx @Deranged Rhino and @Hedge apparently took Advanced Italian with you, and I feel like I’ve been excluded.   

 

Know this:  Non verrò ignorato!  I am reporting you all. 

 

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ok, I think it’s clear I am a fan of @Buffalo_Gal.  I think she can disappear people, wring the neck of a chicken just after felling a sycamore tree and still contribute a ton to the board.  
 

However, sharing a link from a Greek that is all in Italian though—I can’t have it.  I’m insecure enough that I’m sitting here wondering why I can’t speak Italian?  Then I see @Foxx @Deranged Rhino and @Hedge apparently took Advanced Italian with you, and I feel like I’ve been excluded.   

 

Know this:  Non verrò ignorato!  I am reporting you all. 

 

 

Are you quite sure you want to report Gal? I only ask because, as you pointed out, she can disappear people.

[Foxx]

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ok, I think it’s clear I am a fan of @Buffalo_Gal.  I think she can disappear people, wring the neck of a chicken just after felling a sycamore tree and still contribute a ton to the board.  
 

However, sharing a link from a Greek that is all in Italian though—I can’t have it.  I’m insecure enough that I’m sitting here wondering why I can’t speak Italian?  Then I see @Foxx @Deranged Rhino and @Hedge apparently took Advanced Italian with you, and I feel like I’ve been excluded.   

 

Know this:  Non verrò ignorato!  I am reporting you all. 

 

they have these browsers today that automatically translate foreign languages. no need to be excluded or actually learn Italian if you don't have the time nor inclination.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

10 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Are you quite sure you want to report Gal? I only ask because, as you pointed out, she can disappear people.

All of the brilliant minds here at PPP and nobody has noticed that Buffalo_Gal seems to have it in for Italians? With her special talents and the fact that we haven't seen Father Guido Sarducci for quite some time, it got me to thinking that maybe she had a prior life in Salem and had a bone to pick with people of the cloth. 

 

                                                                                                               HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?

[Deranged Rhino]