Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on April 25, 2018, 03:35:32 PM
-
For some perspective here is Donalds Trumps opinion on doing this
"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" Trump said at a campaign rally in Florida in September.
"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
-
For some perspective here is Donalds Trumps opinion on doing this
Sooooo many things come back to haunt the man, but in this day and age of Enquirer readers and Duck Dynasty, it just doesn't matter. Hypocrisy only applies to the other guys
-
Sooooo many things come back to haunt the man, but in this day and age of Enquirer readers and Duck Dynasty, it just doesn't matter. Hypocrisy only applies to the other guys
Trump also called taking the 5th "disgraceful"
-
Its Cohen not Trump taking the 5th, Trump has said nowt on this.
-
For some perspective here is Donalds Trumps opinion on doing this
I'm sorry, where were you when shitbag Lois Lerner plead the 5th over IRS tageting of Republicans, you Bellevue nut case?
-
I'm sorry, where were you when shitbag Lois Lerner plead the 5th over IRS tageting of Republicans, you Bellevue nut case?
Disgraceful
Don't you agree
Just like Flynn and Cohen
-
Disgraceful
Don't you agree
Just like Flynn and Cohen
Flynn was set up and coersed. Again, where you speaking out against Lerner when it happened?
-
Flynn was set up and coersed. Again, where you speaking out against Lerner when it happened?
Oh my f'ing god! A freaking General coerced? Hahahahaha
-
Flynn was set up and coersed. Again, where you speaking out against Lerner when it happened?
weird that Flynn's own lawyers allowed him to be "set up and coerced"
why do you think they did that ?
-
weird that Flynn's own lawyers allowed him to be "set up and coerced"
why do you think they did that ?
Still Wednesday... and he is trying to top himself already
-
So?
-
Oh my f'ing god! A freaking General coerced? Hahahahaha
Are you saying he didn’t plead guilty to protect his son?
-
Are you saying he didn’t plead guilty to protect his son?
I'm saying you will make up excuses for anything from that administration. He PLEAD GUILTY. It might have been to keep his cover as an alien from another planet. It could have been because the CIA needs him to in order to pull off some extravagant plot, it may even be part of an elaborate April Fools joke, but it is most likely, based on the evidence and information available, that he was GUILTY and was looking at some serious charges and potential time.
"The culpability of and potential charges against Flynn’s son, based on public reports, is less clear. Media reports identify Flynn’s son as the Chief of Staff and principal aide to his father at Flynn Intel Group, his father’s consulting and lobbying firm. Reporting further reflects that Flynn’s son attended a December 2015 dinner in Moscow with his father, who sat at a table with Russia’s President; that Russian television network RT paid for Flynn’s son’s travel to Moscow, and RT begrudgingly registered in early November 2017 as a foreign agent under FARA; Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 for work benefitting the Turkish government; and work for Turkish interests relating to Fethullah Gulen, the United States resident Turkish cleric accused of fomenting an attempted coup in 2016. Flynn’s son’s attending meetings and communicating with clients are not, of themselves, criminal offenses. Rather, prosecutors will need evidence of Flynn’s son’s actual intentional participation in criminal acts or his intentionally conspiring with his father to commit a criminal act, in order to bring criminal charges. However, the elder Flynn’s legal team having stopped communicating with the President’s legal defense team may suggest that prosecutors have expressed privately their intent to bring such charges against Flynn and his son, and that they may be negotiating a resolution.
In order for the Special Counsel to threaten and actually bring criminal charges against Flynn’s son, the prosecutors must believe, as set forth in the United States Attorney’ Manual (USAM), that Flynn’s son’s “conduct constitutes a criminal offense, the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction and that a substantial federal interest would be served by the prosecution.” Normally, DOJ policy would disfavor leveraging one close family member against another. The Flynn scenario, however, falls expressly within an exception. That is “specific justification exists, among other circumstances, where (i) the witness and the relative participated in a common business enterprise and the testimony to be elicited relates to that enterprise or its activities; (ii) the testimony to be elicited relates to illegal conduct in which there is reason to believe that both the witness and the relative were active participants; or (iii) testimony to be elicited relates to a crime involving overriding prosecutorial concerns.” Mueller’s team need not look beyond the three alternative justifications – any one is sufficient for the exception to apply; meanwhile, all three expressly apply to the father-son Flynns."
They had Flynn, they may have had his son. His guilty plea even if it was to spare his son, doesn't negate the fact he and possibly his son conspired in criminal acts. You can claim all you want to that it was coercion. The information indicates he was caught and made a deal.
-
I'm saying you will make up excuses for anything from that administration. He PLEAD GUILTY. It might have been to keep his cover as an alien from another planet. It could have been because the CIA needs him to in order to pull off some extravagant plot, it may even be part of an elaborate April Fools joke, but it is most likely, based on the evidence and information available, that he was GUILTY and was looking at some serious charges and potential time.
"The culpability of and potential charges against Flynn’s son, based on public reports, is less clear. Media reports identify Flynn’s son as the Chief of Staff and principal aide to his father at Flynn Intel Group, his father’s consulting and lobbying firm. Reporting further reflects that Flynn’s son attended a December 2015 dinner in Moscow with his father, who sat at a table with Russia’s President; that Russian television network RT paid for Flynn’s son’s travel to Moscow, and RT begrudgingly registered in early November 2017 as a foreign agent under FARA; Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 for work benefitting the Turkish government; and work for Turkish interests relating to Fethullah Gulen, the United States resident Turkish cleric accused of fomenting an attempted coup in 2016. Flynn’s son’s attending meetings and communicating with clients are not, of themselves, criminal offenses. Rather, prosecutors will need evidence of Flynn’s son’s actual intentional participation in criminal acts or his intentionally conspiring with his father to commit a criminal act, in order to bring criminal charges. However, the elder Flynn’s legal team having stopped communicating with the President’s legal defense team may suggest that prosecutors have expressed privately their intent to bring such charges against Flynn and his son, and that they may be negotiating a resolution.
In order for the Special Counsel to threaten and actually bring criminal charges against Flynn’s son, the prosecutors must believe, as set forth in the United States Attorney’ Manual (USAM), that Flynn’s son’s “conduct constitutes a criminal offense, the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction and that a substantial federal interest would be served by the prosecution.” Normally, DOJ policy would disfavor leveraging one close family member against another. The Flynn scenario, however, falls expressly within an exception. That is “specific justification exists, among other circumstances, where (i) the witness and the relative participated in a common business enterprise and the testimony to be elicited relates to that enterprise or its activities; (ii) the testimony to be elicited relates to illegal conduct in which there is reason to believe that both the witness and the relative were active participants; or (iii) testimony to be elicited relates to a crime involving overriding prosecutorial concerns.” Mueller’s team need not look beyond the three alternative justifications – any one is sufficient for the exception to apply; meanwhile, all three expressly apply to the father-son Flynns."
They had Flynn, they may have had his son. His guilty plea even if it was to spare his son, doesn't negate the fact he and possibly his son conspired in criminal acts. You can claim all you want to that it was coercion. The information indicates he was caught and made a deal.
Post the link from this
-
Post the link from this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/11/27/will-michael-flynn-plead-guilty-and-cooperate-to-protect-his-son/#55462df914fe
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/11/27/will-michael-flynn-plead-guilty-and-cooperate-to-protect-his-son/#55462df914fe
Good. I was hoping you would post this. This was just one of the articles I was referring too. So what’s your point? Hypothetically....
Mueller: “You plead guilt and we won’t fuck with your son”
Flynn (a father): “K”
At this point Flynn has lost almost everything including his home to pay for legals bills. Mueller financially ruined his life.....for fucking nothing.
-
Good. I was hoping you would post this. This was just one of the articles I was referring too. So what’s your point? Hypothetically....
Mueller: “You plead guilt and we won’t fuck with your son”
Flynn (a father): “K”
At this point Flynn has lost almost everything including his home to pay for legals bills. Mueller financially ruined his life.....for fucking nothing.
There are other articles and information that suggest rather strongly that Mueller had more than enough to indict Flynn. In other words the evidence was compelling that Flynn was guilty. If he said fine, I'll plead guilty to this charge and agree to accept responsibility for ALL of it, including the things you have on my son, then we have a deal. That certainly may have happened. But that isn't to say Flynn is innocent and just agreed to plead guilty on the off chance they would go after his son, who was also innocent as a lamb. That might be what you want to believe, but that isn't reality. They had Flynn dead to rights, he was going to get indicted and he knew it. So he cut a deal.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i-knew-flynn-lied-to-me-about-russian-contacts-when-he-was-fired/
Pence said Flynn lied to him. Flynn apparently wasn't above not telling the truth. Accept it Coach.. Flynn plead guilty because he was guilty
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-questions-raised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation/amp/
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-questions-raised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation/amp/
I read this article before. couple things... One the national review, we can agree is right wing. The author is far right leaning.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
Next, his basis for Flynn being framed, coerced, railroaded is this. The person interviewing Flynn felt he was telling the truth. From a laymans point of view this seems pretty compelling. Later, the prosecutors still went after Flynn for lying. How can that be possible right? Must be political!
Not really. Having been involved in countless investigations myself, I can certainly see this as not uncommon. Often times the interviewers don't have all the information pertaining to the case and are asking a set of agreed upon questions. A couple real possibilities easily explain this without it being a conspiracy. 1. Like I said, the interviewers didn't know all the facts of the case and evidence available at the time they interviewed Flynn. Flynn probably came across as upfront and candid. The interviewer reporting that he felt Flynn was not lying may have been his honest assessment. "He seemed like he was telling the truth to me"
2. After the interview new evidence or information came to light that contradicted what Flynn said and it was obvious he lied. Those are two scenarios that are more likely than any conspiracy. The fact Flynn lied to Pence and was fired for it adds to that scenario.
But if you want to continue to believe in the coercion theory because it helps you sleep at night, I can't change that and honestly, no amount of evidence would. I just find it highly hypocritical that Hillary underwent about 9 republican spearheaded investigations and they were unable to pin anything on her, yet you believe she is guilty.. and Flynn, who admitted he lied, plead guilty, had a pattern of lying about his russian ties, is innocent.
-
I read this article before. couple things... One the national review, we can agree is right wing. The author is far right leaning.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
Next, his basis for Flynn being framed, coerced, railroaded is this. The person interviewing Flynn felt he was telling the truth. From a laymans point of view this seems pretty compelling. Later, the prosecutors still went after Flynn for lying. How can that be possible right? Must be political!
Not really. Having been involved in countless investigations myself, I can certainly see this as not uncommon. Often times the interviewers don't have all the information pertaining to the case and are asking a set of agreed upon questions. A couple real possibilities easily explain this without it being a conspiracy. 1. Like I said, the interviewers didn't know all the facts of the case and evidence available at the time they interviewed Flynn. Flynn probably came across as upfront and candid. The interviewer reporting that he felt Flynn was not lying may have been his honest assessment. "He seemed like he was telling the truth to me"
2. After the interview new evidence or information came to light that contradicted what Flynn said and it was obvious he lied. Those are two scenarios that are more likely than any conspiracy. The fact Flynn lied to Pence and was fired for it adds to that scenario.
But if you want to continue to believe in the coercion theory because it helps you sleep at night, I can't change that and honestly, no amount of evidence would. I just find it highly hypocritical that Hillary underwent about 9 republican spearheaded investigations and they were unable to pin anything on her, yet you believe she is guilty.. and Flynn, who admitted he lied, plead guilty, had a pattern of lying about his russian ties, is innocent.
Comey, Clapper, Mueller are Deep State, the dolt comey admitted himself.
-
Comey, Clapper, Mueller are Deep State, the dolt comey admitted himself.
I was wrong...
-
I was wrong...
Yup you said it, if you do not think the establishment are trying everything to take Trump and anyone connect to him down.
-
ok, I stand corrected
Trump doesn't really have an issue with someone taking the 5th amendment
-
Are you saying he didn’t plead guilty to protect his son?
you're saying his son committed a crime (or crimes)
You don't think Flynn lied to the FBI
Try to keep in mind that Pence said Flynn lied to him and Trump said he fired Flynn for lying to Pence so we know Flynn has no problem lying to people
Did he lie to Pence to protect his son or was that lie for some other reason ?
-
Good. I was hoping you would post this. This was just one of the articles I was referring too. So what’s your point? Hypothetically....
Mueller: “You plead guilt and we won’t fuck with your son”
Flynn (a father): “K”
At this point Flynn has lost almost everything including his home to pay for legals bills. Mueller financially ruined his life.....for fucking nothing.
fun game
I want to play
Flynn: How exactly is "fucking with my son" even legal. Go ahead a fuck with him and lets see what happens
-
Yup you said it, if you do not think the establishment are trying everything to take Trump and anyone connect to him down.
No, I was wrong that there is hope you can save your credibility.
-
fun game
I want to play
Flynn: How exactly is "fucking with my son" even legal. Go ahead a fuck with him and lets see what happens
I'm just amazed at the length people will go to create a scenario where Flynn wasn't guilty
-
I'm saying you will make up excuses for anything from that administration. He PLEAD GUILTY. It might have been to keep his cover as an alien from another planet. It could have been because the CIA needs him to in order to pull off some extravagant plot, it may even be part of an elaborate April Fools joke, but it is most likely, based on the evidence and information available, that he was GUILTY and was looking at some serious charges and potential time.
"The culpability of and potential charges against Flynn’s son, based on public reports, is less clear. Media reports identify Flynn’s son as the Chief of Staff and principal aide to his father at Flynn Intel Group, his father’s consulting and lobbying firm. Reporting further reflects that Flynn’s son attended a December 2015 dinner in Moscow with his father, who sat at a table with Russia’s President; that Russian television network RT paid for Flynn’s son’s travel to Moscow, and RT begrudgingly registered in early November 2017 as a foreign agent under FARA; Flynn Intel Group received $530,000 for work benefitting the Turkish government; and work for Turkish interests relating to Fethullah Gulen, the United States resident Turkish cleric accused of fomenting an attempted coup in 2016. Flynn’s son’s attending meetings and communicating with clients are not, of themselves, criminal offenses. Rather, prosecutors will need evidence of Flynn’s son’s actual intentional participation in criminal acts or his intentionally conspiring with his father to commit a criminal act, in order to bring criminal charges. However, the elder Flynn’s legal team having stopped communicating with the President’s legal defense team may suggest that prosecutors have expressed privately their intent to bring such charges against Flynn and his son, and that they may be negotiating a resolution.
In order for the Special Counsel to threaten and actually bring criminal charges against Flynn’s son, the prosecutors must believe, as set forth in the United States Attorney’ Manual (USAM), that Flynn’s son’s “conduct constitutes a criminal offense, the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction and that a substantial federal interest would be served by the prosecution.” Normally, DOJ policy would disfavor leveraging one close family member against another. The Flynn scenario, however, falls expressly within an exception. That is “specific justification exists, among other circumstances, where (i) the witness and the relative participated in a common business enterprise and the testimony to be elicited relates to that enterprise or its activities; (ii) the testimony to be elicited relates to illegal conduct in which there is reason to believe that both the witness and the relative were active participants; or (iii) testimony to be elicited relates to a crime involving overriding prosecutorial concerns.” Mueller’s team need not look beyond the three alternative justifications – any one is sufficient for the exception to apply; meanwhile, all three expressly apply to the father-son Flynns."
They had Flynn, they may have had his son. His guilty plea even if it was to spare his son, doesn't negate the fact he and possibly his son conspired in criminal acts. You can claim all you want to that it was coercion. The information indicates he was caught and made a deal.
Hey bro, Andy Dufresne wasn't guilty either and took his chances. Look where it got him. Life in Shawshank.
-
Hey bro, Andy Dufresne wasn't guilty either and took his chances. Look where it got him. Life in Shawshank.
Good point
-
Nice underhanded move on Trump's part with an eyewink as well to issue a pardon so as to signal his willingness to pardon Cohen :-\
-
I'm just amazed at the length people will go to create a scenario where Flynn wasn't guilty
Not nearly as impressive as the fbi/cia/presidential cover up they did for killary.
-
Not nearly as impressive as the fbi/cia/presidential cover up they did for killary.
Do you ever wonder what the future holds? This is the age of mudslinging. Sometimes it sticks, occasionally it doesn't. There are times that it sticks only to be washed off...usually with lies. Politicians are an unusually muddy group regardless of whether they lean to the right or to the left.
-
Not nearly as impressive as the fbi/cia/presidential cover up they did for killary.
and another who is destined to be added to the irrelevant pile with Sherif and soulcrusher
-
Do you ever wonder what the future holds? This is the age of mudslinging. Sometimes it sticks, occasionally it doesn't. There are times that it sticks only to be washed off...usually with lies. Politicians are an unusually muddy group regardless of whether they lean to the right or to the left.
The future holds chaos (so to speak). We are in the middle of a culture war. It's going to get uglier.
-
-
and another who is destined to be added to the irrelevant pile with Sherif and soulcrusher
I can see how you'd like to avoid the truth. Having to face your own double standards might not be something you're used to.
-
I can see how you'd like to avoid the truth. Having to face your own double standards might not be something you're used to.
Blah blah blah
-
Do you ever wonder what the future holds? This is the age of mudslinging. Sometimes it sticks, occasionally it doesn't. There are times that it sticks only to be washed off...usually with lies. Politicians are an unusually muddy group regardless of whether they lean to the right or to the left.
The future is bleak. I'm assuming another civil war, divided along party lines.
-
Blah blah blah
Did you have your fingers in your ears for this? :D
-
Did you have your fingers in your ears for this? :D
''I'm just tired of hearing the same old bull shit.. :)
-
Did you have your fingers in your ears for this? :D
I'm a fan of the truth, I have no patience for partisan bullshit and you and a few others are really pushing that limit. Facts are irrelevant.. it's all about what is partisan for the republicans... gets old
Sherif and Soul have lost all credibility. They are Republican shills. You and Dos Equis are quickly approaching that. I's not that we don't agree, its that facts don't seem to matter to you guys.
-
I'm a fan of the truth, I have no patience for partisan bullshit and you and a few others are really pushing that limit. Facts are irrelevant.. it's all about what is partisan for the republicans... gets old
Sherif and Soul have lost all credibility. They are Republican shills. You and Dos Equis are quickly approaching that. I's not that we don't agree, its that facts don't seem to matter to you guys.
They make up their own facts, their own reality, and that is where they live. Just like Trump. If facts don't line up with that reality, then its fake news, or a conspiracy, or the deep state, or Hillary, or Obama, blah, blah.
-
I'm a fan of the truth, I have no patience for partisan bullshit and you and a few others are really pushing that limit. Facts are irrelevant.. it's all about what is partisan for the republicans... gets old
Sherif and Soul have lost all credibility. They are Republican shills. You and Dos Equis are quickly approaching that. I's not that we don't agree, its that facts don't seem to matter to you guys.
Can't speak for the others, but if pointing out the hypocrisy from you leftists is denying facts, then so be it. If you were here daily ranting about Obamas every move and lie maybe you'd see things differently. But you weren't, you and a few gimmicks here seem hell bent on holding Trump to some ivory tower standard that has never applied to a demoncrat president. As far as partisan bullshit, look within yourself.
-
Can't speak for the others, but if pointing out the hypocrisy from you leftists is denying facts, then so be it. If you were here daily ranting about Obamas every move and lie maybe you'd see things differently. But you weren't, you and a few gimmicks here seem hell bent on holding Trump to some ivory tower standard that has never applied to a demoncrat president. As far as partisan bullshit, look within yourself.
"You leftists"... sad!
-
Can't speak for the others, but if pointing out the hypocrisy from you leftists is denying facts, then so be it. If you were here daily ranting about Obamas every move and lie maybe you'd see things differently. But you weren't, you and a few gimmicks here seem hell bent on holding Trump to some ivory tower standard that has never applied to a demoncrat president. As far as partisan bullshit, look within yourself.
Yep, pretty much sums it up. Very hypocritical. Have to be consistent and they have demonstrated that they are not. Just still constant defense for that guy (Obama). No problem calling out Trump if you apply the same standard to others as well.
-
No problem calling out Trump if you apply the same standard to others as well.
This.
The inconsistencies are astounding and when you point it out, they (leftist demoncrats) get even more defensive and start attacking you for bringing up the past. Yet they spent 8 years blaming Bush for every Obama failure.
-
I'm a fan of the truth, I have no patience for partisan bullshit and you and a few others are really pushing that limit. Facts are irrelevant.. it's all about what is partisan for the republicans... gets old
Sherif and Soul have lost all credibility. They are Republican shills. You and Dos Equis are quickly approaching that. I's not that we don't agree, its that facts don't seem to matter to you guys.
Uh oh. Anytime a liberal shill says I'm losing credibility, I better start watching my Ps and Qs.
-
They make up their own facts, their own reality, and that is where they live. Just like Trump. If facts don't line up with that reality, then its fake news, or a conspiracy, or the deep state, or Hillary, or Obama, blah, blah.
Says the CNN brainwashed zombie