4merper4mer Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 14 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: More on the above: Wait a minute. Fokker? Does this mean Flynn lost the cat and then tried to pass off a lookalike? 1 2
B-Man Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Because he was innocent. Why Didn’t the FBI Record the Flynn Interview? by Hans Von Spakovsky & Cully Stimson Original Article 1
B-Man Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Byron York: Impeachment, continued: The Mueller wars go on and on. 2
Magox Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 8 minutes ago, Hedge said: I'm gonna miss Grenell. He should lead the FBI lol 6 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 17 minutes ago, Magox said: I'm gonna miss Grenell. He should lead the FBI lol I was just thinking that! Wherever he ends up, the deep state response will be “oh *****!”
billsfan1959 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I love how they argue that, for false statements to be material, it is "sufficient that the false statements have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to Which it was addressed (quoting Neder, 527 US. at 16)." Yet, they offer no explanation whatsoever how these false statements (if you actually believe there were any) could potentially influence the the FBI regarding any decisions related to the underlying investigation. This is not an instance where the FBI was asking questions about anything they didn't already know the answers to. The interview of Flynn was about what he said in conversations with the Russiam Ambassador and the FBI Agents were in possession of the transcripts of the conversations. If Flynn told them any lies, they would know what the actual truth was because it was right in front of them. A false statement only has the potential to influence if it would cause you to do something you wouldn't if you knew the truth. They already knew the truth. Edited May 22, 2020 by billsfan1959 4
Tiberius Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said: I love how they argue that, for false statements to be material, it is "sufficient that the false statements have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to Which it was addressed (quoting Neder, 527 US. at 16)." Yet, they offer no explanation whatsoever how these false statements (if you actually believe there were any) could potentially influence the the FBI regarding any decisions related to the underlying investigation. This is not an instance where the FBI was asking questions about anything they didn't already know the answers to. The interview of Flynn was about what he said in conversations with the Russiam Ambassador and the FBI Agents were in possession of the transcripts of the conversations. If Flynn told them any lies, they would know what the actual truth was because it was right in front of them. A false statement only has the potential to influence if it would cause the you to do something you wouldn't if you knew the truth. They already knew the truth. Flynn lied to protect Trump
Deranged Rhino Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said: I love how they argue that, for false statements to be material, it is "sufficient that the false statements have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to Which it was addressed (quoting Neder, 527 US. at 16)." Yet, they offer no explanation whatsoever how these false statements (if you actually believe there were any) could potentially influence the the FBI regarding any decisions related to the underlying investigation. This is not an instance where the FBI was asking questions about anything they didn't already know the answers to. The interview of Flynn was about what he said in conversations with the Russiam Ambassador and the FBI Agents were in possession of the transcripts of the conversations. If Flynn told them any lies, they would know what the actual truth was because it was right in front of them. A false statement only has the potential to influence if it would cause the you to do something you wouldn't if you knew the truth. They already knew the truth. 100%
keepthefaith Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Swalwell a soldier of the left. Not interest in what has really transpired in all of this. Instead wants to criticize the process and make himself important. He flat out sucks. 2
billsfan1959 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Flynn lied to protect Trump If I were a betting man and I had to choose which person, Flynn or Strzok, is more likely to have lied in that interview (and about anything relating to that interview), my money would be on Strzok every time. However, your response is irrelevant to the point I was making, as usual. But, let's set that aside for the moment and say, for the sake of argument that Flynn lied. The defense's argument is that any false statement by Flynn was material because it had a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, decisions of the FBI regarding the underlying investigation. Please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession? 6 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Swalwell a soldier of the left. Not interest in what has really transpired in all of this. Instead wants to criticize the process and make himself important. He flat out sucks. The smartest thing, by far, I ever heard Swalwell say is when he farted during an interview.... Edited May 22, 2020 by billsfan1959 2
Tiberius Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: If I were a betting man and I had to choose which person, Flynn or Strzok, is more likely to have lied in that interview (and about anything relating to that interview), my money would be on Strzok every time. However, your response is irrelevant to the point I was making, as usual. But, let's set that aside for the moment and say, for the sake of argument that Flynn lied. The defense's argument is that any false statement by Flynn was material because it had a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, decisions of the FBI regarding the underlying investigation. Please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession? The smartest, by far, thing I ever heard Swalwell say is when he farted during an interview.... You'd trust Flynn, the guy who was secretly working for Turkey while getting a job as National Security Advisor? Admit it, you don't like republican forms of government, do you? You want a corrupt dictatorship instead
billsfan1959 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: You'd trust Flynn, the guy who was secretly working for Turkey while getting a job as National Security Advisor? Admit it, you don't like republican forms of government, do you? You want a corrupt dictatorship instead I would trust Flynn over Strzok all day every day. I prefer a republican form of government. Now please, answer my question: Please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession?
Tiberius Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: I would trust Flynn over Strzok all day every day. I prefer a republican form of government. Now please, answer my question: Please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession? You'd seriously trust a guy that was double dealing on the US? Sad Oh and lies about an ongoing investigation? Oh I suppose that would fall under the simple definition of obstruction of justice. Right?
billsfan1959 Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: You'd seriously trust a guy that was double dealing on the US? Sad Oh and lies about an ongoing investigation? Oh I suppose that would fall under the simple definition of obstruction of justice. Right? No, actually it wouldn't. That is the point of the question I keep asking you. They have to be material. So, again, please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession?
Tiberius Posted May 22, 2020 Posted May 22, 2020 1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said: No, actually it wouldn't. That is the point of the question I keep asking you. They have to be material. So, again, please tell us what potential influence any false statement could have had since the FBI had the truth in the transcripts in their possession? Oh no, lying to investigators is obstruction of justice. He shouldn't have lied. You trust a guy who lied to the FBI, take off the political blinders for a minute at least
Recommended Posts