daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Reality Check said: Now you move the goal posts. The election was not hacked period. An influence campaign is par for the course to anyone that pays attention to those pesky things like details. If you want to buy into vague terminology to describe something you don't understand, I say good luck to you. Considering the "Trump Dossier" was produced in Russia and used for political reasons against Trump, that mysteriously doesn't count as Russian Interference. Russians interfere against Trump, you don't see it. Russians interfere against Hillary, now it's a problem. By the way. A company I am quite familiar with, Crowdstrike, recently testified that they don't know who hacked Hillary's emails. That's right. The FBI weren't allowed to look at the servers, but Crowdstrike had that privilege. Crowdstrike said that they have no evidence of who actually did it. That company is run by Demitri Alperovich. The same guy who partnered up with John McAfee back in the day to make the viruses that McAfee was selling anti-virus software for. You have no sense of the fish bowl you have been living in. The same people that show up with the solutions are often the same people who created the problem...and we all get to pay for it...at top dollar. Again, thanks for an honest, well thought out post. I never said the election was hacked, so that's your use of vague terminology. As for who did hack the server, they don't know it as fact, but all signs point to Russia. I also feel there's a difference between a country like Russia disseminating information about our election, and information obtained from Russian sources. Not a huge one, but def a difference. Even if that info isn't true, candidates lie about each other every hour on the hour.
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: Again, thanks for an honest, well thought out post. I never said the election was hacked, so that's your use of vague terminology. As for who did hack the server, they don't know it as fact, but all signs point to Russia. I also feel there's a difference between a country like Russia disseminating information about our election, and information obtained from Russian sources. Not a huge one, but def a difference. Even if that info isn't true, candidates lie about each other every hour on the hour. Fine. You have your vague MSM talking points and won't apply any logic. Your response is all over the map. "All signs point to Russia". You can't name one particular anything having to do with this situation. Some Russians you can't even name ran some ads. Wow. "Ignore" time for you. Good luck my friend.
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... That's what you took away from what I wrote? Enough with you, *****stick. Even if everything you say is true, and I know you believe it to be, I still feel he has to take responsibility for his own plea. If he had bad lawyers, bad judges, and bad evidence, he has to have faith in his own appeal. If I was in his shoes, I'd be upset, but in the end my plea is my plea 7 minutes ago, daz28 said: Fine. You have your vague MSM talking points and won't apply any logic. Your response is all over the map. "All signs point to Russia". You can't name one particular anything having to do with this situation. Some Russians you can't even name ran some ads. Wow. "Ignore" time for you. Good luck my friend. Actually I got it from this, and it sounds much like what an expert would say in court: Henry added: “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the — what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.” https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/11/new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-dnc/ Sorry your reply has my name to it Reality Check. I screwed that up Edited May 30, 2020 by daz28
Foxx Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 hours ago, daz28 said: Ok he avoided a nuclear conflict. Got it. What tweet(s) did you develop that deflection from? I know a lot of you have your heels dug in too deep to even attempt to pull them out now, but I'm not going to ignore the facts no matter what semantics or unrealistic rationales are used. For what it's worth, I agree that his reasoning is surely debatable, but that's a different topic altogether. There's a link to the entire transcript here: https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/29/declassified-flynn-transcripts-contradict-key-mueller-claims-against-flynn/ so... you're suggesting that there should have been no transition of power? that there should have been no preliminary discussions between in incoming administration and the second largest nuclear power on the planet? alrighty then...
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, Foxx said: so... you're suggesting that there should have been no transition of power? that there should have been no preliminary discussions between in incoming administration and the second largest nuclear power on the planet? alrighty then... I don't think he should have attempted to effect a policy that was just put in place. I understand why he did, but I think he should have waited.
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: FBI's top lawyer, Dana Boente, ousted amid Fox News criticism for role in Flynn investigation Boente was asked to resign on Friday and two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss him said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray. </snip> 1 2
Foxx Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 hour ago, daz28 said: Do you know more than the Senate intel committee? Is that what you're claiming? i mean... you are aware that there is still another portion of the Senate Intel report on Russian Collusion due out, right? as such, the final conclusion has not yet been rendered.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, daz28 said: I don't think he should have attempted to effect a policy that was just put in place. I understand why he did, but I think he should have waited. He did not "attempt to effect a policy that was just put in place." You're wrong. And now digging in because you're dishonest. 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Foxx said: i mean... you are aware that there is still another portion of the Senate Intel report on Russian Collusion due out, right? as such, the final conclusion has not yet been rendered. I was only referencing their findings on election interference.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, daz28 said: Even if everything you say is true, and I know you believe it to be, I still feel he has to take responsibility for his own plea. If he had bad lawyers, bad judges, and bad evidence, he has to have faith in his own appeal. If I was in his shoes, I'd be upset, but in the end my plea is my plea This is not a reasonable position for one to hold if they have any desire to live in a free nation, under a just government. It is the antithesis of justice for a government to seek the guilt of an individual they know to be innocent, and to command a guilty plea by putting that individual under the full weight of the unlimited resources and finances of the Federal government. Just verdicts are not obtained by forcing individuals into poverty through the costs of defending themselves against a government whose goal is exactly that, and then threatening their families. A government which does such things is evil. Edited May 31, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker 3 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: This is not a reasonable position for one to hold if they have any desire to live an a free nation under a just government. It is the antithesis of justice for a government to seek the guilt of an individual they know to be innocent, and to command a guilt plea by putting that individual under the full weight of the unlimited resources and finances of the Federal government. Just verdicts are not obtained by forcing individuals into poverty through the costs of defending themselves against a government whose goal is exactly that, and then threatening their families. A government which does such things is evil. I was just pointing out that this is why we have appeals courts.
Foxx Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 hour ago, daz28 said: That's a truly fine rebuttal. I can see why people think you're a genius. Try this on for size Einstein. Other than DEEP STATE SUX, what is wrong with the FBI having info on someone, and trying to get them to lie about it? Cops do it ALL DAY LONG. The FBI doesn't record conversations, but they knew they had him dead to rights if he didn't admit it. Once he knew what they knew after his interview, he up and said, "you got me". He pleaded guilty. Not because of the deep state, or that they threatened his family. He pleaded guilty because he knew what he told them was not what matched the facts. I don't care if the agents didn't "think" he was lying. wow! talk about your classic projection. what a total load of horseshit... 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He did not "attempt to effect a policy that was just put in place." You're wrong. And now digging in because you're dishonest. The call and announcing of sanctions are both dated Dec 29, 2016. Obama's sanctions came 1 day sooner, and I'm guessing he knew about them before that. You might want to look up the word effect.
Foxx Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, daz28 said: What does "Don't do anything" mean? Would asking not to get into an escalation be considered something? serious question... r u off your meds today? seriously because that is not what you are trying to imply it is. in context it was, " It wasn't, "Don't do anything..."" Edited May 30, 2020 by Foxx
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: The call and announcing of sanctions are both dated Dec 29, 2016. Obama's sanctions came 1 day sooner, and I'm guessing he knew about them before that. You might want to look up the word effect. Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions just placed on the Russians. Otherwise, shut the ***** up and go back to sleep.
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, Foxx said: serious question... r u off your meds today? seriously because that is not what you are trying to imply it is. Well, it sounds like he was telling them he didn't say anything about doing anything, when he in fact did ask for things. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions just placed on the Russians. Otherwise, shut the ***** up and go back to sleep. Quit with the sanctions semantics. We're past that 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) On 5/30/2020 at 6:57 PM, daz28 said: I was just pointing out that this is why we have appeals courts. No, that’s not why we have appeals courts. That argument begins by accepting that it is reasonable for the government engage in the type of malfeasance I described, leaving the defendant with no assets (IE no ability to continue to mount a defense), and the lives of their family destroyed, but then to have the expectation that the same system which just destroyed multiple generations of their family intentionally to then exonerate him. This is not a reasonable position, and doesn’t even begin to speak to the lives destroyed. An appeals court overturning a ruling doesn’t restore the assets spent, or the lives of the family destroyed. None of this is justice. You can’t have a legitimate government, chartered to protect the rights of its citizens, and at the same time accept these sort of actions and for the system to correct itself. Edited June 1, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker 1 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Foxx said: wow! talk about your classic projection. what a total load of horseshit... Yes, I'll admit there's a lot of projection. 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, that’s not why we have appeals courts. That argument begins by accepting that it is reasonable for the government engage in the type of malfeasance I described, leaving the defended with no assets (IE no ability to continue to mount a defense), and the lives of their family destroyed, but then to have the expectation that the same system which just destroyed multiple generations of their family intentionally to then exonerate him. This is not a reasonable position, and doesn’t even begin to speak to the lives destroyed. An appeals court overturning a ruling doesn’t restore the assets spent, or the lives of the family destroyed. None of this is justice. You can’t have a legitimate government, chartered to protect the rights of its citizens, and at the same time accept these sort of actions and for the system to correct itself. People go broke defending themselves all the time. If there was truly the injustice that some of you believe, then I hope it's uncovered. Let's not forget he's not the first guy to accept a plea, because he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. Unfortunately, that is the American way.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: Quit with the sanctions semantics. We're past that 8 minutes ago, daz28 said: The call and announcing of sanctions are both dated Dec 29, 2016. Obama's sanctions came 1 day sooner, and I'm guessing he knew about them before that. You might want to look up the word effect. Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions OR expulsions just placed on the Russians. Do it or shut the ***** up. 1
Recommended Posts