Provided information / leads, specifically regarding obstruction of justice. How far down the stupid tree are we going to go? Are you going to ask me what words / verbs mean next?
Yes i did Obama didn't say he was a threat. Where do you see that? There are no clear statements about what Obama's concerns are but it seems Obama just thought he was rogue in the sense of doing his own thing All of yall are talking like dude was a spy. He was charged with negotiating with Russia while Obama was in office and sanctioned Russia. The FBI says he asked Russia no to retaliate. Thats what actually happened. no i don't give that he did that or lied. He wasn't putting the country in danger
You can read all about it, right here https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/det...s-cooperation-mueller-probe/story?id=63090767
It says he gave Mueller details on the campaign You're confused by the sentence The information includes details on Flynn's communications with Russians and exposes efforts by those close the president to thwart the investigation This sentence does not say Flynn gave details on the obstruction. Its saying Mueller had Flynn's communications with Russians and separately he has information on people obstructing the investigation The only thing Flynn gave them was bis communications with Russians after the election I can keep repeating it. I haven't changed my argument like you have because you don't understand what happened. You can't even understand that sentence sadly
Do you disagree that your source says that Flynn gave them information on the campaign and his communications with Russians and nothing more?
There were no transgressions. Who else was charged? You're operating from the false belief there was collusion. He told Mueller about the campaign. Law enforcement does not hand out deals to get other people on a hope there are other people to.charge. if the deal is to hand over other people they already know who they want. Nobody was charged based on information from Flynn because THERE WAS NO COLLUSION
You have different standards depends on who is committing the crime. That's not ASSuming, that's OBVious
Where is yoiur proof of my different standard's? Classic jilted b**** style argument Normally he is losing argument and pulls this Here i say i dont care Flynn lied, because what he lied about wasn't harmful to anyone Thats an opinion. In classic Sweet Lou he brings up some random subject to keep arguing. In classic arrogant style he claims to know what i think about random subject
It's just funny that you excuse one crime - a very serious felony because, "heck man, no harm done" - so I'd be interested in knowing what other crimes you don't care about since apparently lying to the FBI is no big deal to you. Seems instead of addressing that, you just go full "I need to act like I'm a top dog to cover up my insecurities" mode.
You have not demonstrated my different standard's. I have nothing to defend. You made a claim with no evidence Show me my different standards. You so ****ing arrogant you think i have to defend myself against your baseless claim
@Sweet Lou 4 2 @larsv8 An appellate court decided Flynn's charges should be dropped. You know why? Because he was railroaded
More importantly the prosecuting entity dropped the charges and refuses to prosecute. They've also provided the exculpatory evidence that was originally REQUIRED prior to taking the plea deal. @pgabriel I think you get it. And by that I mean, you are asking the same question that can't be answered: What did Flynn lie specifically about? Ok, he took a plea to lying, and cooperated with Mueller's team to reduce more damaging charges and financial duress. They threatened to charge his son with FARA charges too. The story from Flynn's side is that he took the deal to put an end to it and protect his son. So the damaging charges were lying, FARA registration and then his son. Reduced to lying to protect his son in exchange for cooperation, which by all accounts Flynn did. I've seen some make a big deal about the FARA charges. But there are TONS of examples where people sign up after the fact and don't even get their hand slapped. Flynn's attorney's asked DOJ and WH Counsel if his delay in registering would be a problem. The answer was no, they didn't see it as a problem. Tony and John Podesta both did not register when they lobbied for Russia on behalf of Uranium One. As a matter of fact, Mueller went easy and hundreds of lobbyists who had not registered were allowed to register after operating for years once word that Mueller was using it against Flynn. Again, the double standard being used for political reasons. That's essentially what it boils down to. And it was done because Obama pushed for it. History is showing the Obama admin was one of the dirtiest if not THE dirtiest admin in America's history. From spying on journalists, political opponents to weaponizing the IRS, FBI, DOJ and CIA, they ran the country Soviet style and controlled the media Soviet style. At least it can be said that Trump did not spy on political opponents or punish dissenting views by using the IRS against them. I'm sort of surprised that there isn't a tit-for-tat, but then if he did do that, it would go against what the right has been fighting to stop. All we on the right want is a return to civilized politics, and bureaucrats who don't use their positions to impose their political views and impartially do their job. Constitutional rule of law. The left seems to want to censor, punish dissenting views, and impose their belief system by any means necessary. If that means rigging election machines, so be it. If you aint cheating you aint playing. (obligatory troll) https://stream.org/tony-podesta-lobbied-for-russias-uranium-one-and-did-not-file-as-a-foreign-agent/
This isn't true. The issue at hand was the DOJ having a change of heart right before sentencing. The judge, instead of typically rubber stamping the dropped charges, appointed a retired judge as a stand-in prosecutor to make legal arguments against the DOJ. It was quite fascinating. The main judge never officially decided whether or not he was going accept the DOJ's new position. He just wanted to play it out a little longer because of the unusual way in which the president attempted to assert influence and also because the plea deal was already agreed to. Some believe this was just a way to drag the process out and shame the DOJ in court for breaking norms of behavior and being puppets to the president. Some would argue DOJ should be Trump's puppet, but DOJ was not arguing that in court. The retired stand-in prosecutor was arguing DOJ was obviously being a puppet and not operating in the interest of justice. Anyhow, before anything advanced to a decision-making process, DOJ appealed the whole stand-in judge procedure. A 3 judge panel sided with DOJ, but not because he was railroaded. That decision had nothing to do with the merits of Flynn's defense - it was procedural. That 3 judge panel decision was appealed to the entire court (an banc) and a larger panel reversed the decision, so the stand-in judge won. Again, it was a procedural ruling about whether or not this stand-in process could legally go on for a bit. All fascinating, but nothing to do with Flynn being railroaded. It was a power battle between DOJ and the judiciary. And while this process of playing it out with a stand-in prosecutor retired judge is legally defensible, the endgame would have been nuts if the main trial judge ended up declaring that he wouldn't accept the dropped charges. This was arguably just a Cersei shame march from Game of Thrones. In the end, many legal observers believed that DOJs recommendation to drop the charges would have been accepted either by the trial judge or an appeals court. It just never got that far in the process. And to my original point of agreement. If the process kept dragging on without an ultimate decision, then it was very predictable that Trump would pardon Flynn. All of this is fascinating from a legal standpoint, but yes, a waste of money if the endgame outcome was never in doubt and if that's the only thing people care about.
What do you think about the charges of lying? It seems that its charge that the DOJ hardly follows through on. Practically if they have someone on lying they probably got them for tjhe crime they are being questioned about. Do you have an opinion? What do you think about what he was questioned about, speaking to Russia while Obama was still president
I haven't read the Mueller report. I am aware that Flynn lied and had multiple chances to retract his plea and did not. I am also aware that there was a point in time that the Flynn investigation only continued due to clerical error. Personally, don't care that much... didn't seem smart to have Flynn be in such a position of power. And while I agree that Trump gets overly attacked often, I also think the administration is quite a train wreck, so not surprised by all the bumbling, conflicts of interest, and influence peddling. My interest in the case was 90% trial and appellate shenanigans.
