Comey and Mueller

[Joe Fan]

Some parallels with the Marta Stewart matter. They could not get her on anything real either, just a process crime.

Eestimated prison sentence is 0 to 6 months and a $500 to $9,500 fine

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Some parallels with the Marta Stewart matter. They could not get her on anything real either, just a process crime.

Eestimated prison sentence is 0 to 6 months and a $500 to $9,500 fine

"Process crime" = perjury BTW. If the reports are to be believed, Flynn was hiding the fact that Trump told him to communicate certain messages directly with Russia. For the first time, Trump would be implicated directly in the activity that he and his surrogates have repeatedly proclaimed did not happen.

 

[Brad Austin]

I wonder if Mueller will conclude DT was 'extremely careless' in his foreign relations activities, but not at a level that amounts to illegal collusion.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

For the first time, Trump would be implicated directly in the activity that he and his surrogates have repeatedly proclaimed did not happen.

So as I understand this, Flynn is saying he was in contact with the Russians in December (after the election). Let's assume that the report that he's going to testify that Trump told him to do it is accurate, and that Trump did in fact tell him to do it.

I'm assuming Trump has denied ever having told him to do that (I can't keep all this straight anymore.) So if all that turns out to be false, and he did direct Flynn to contact the Russians... what does that mean exactly, and how would that activity be considered inappropriate or illegal?

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's started already. The argument is transitioning from "it didn't happen...no evidence" to "it was appropriate for normal operations".

 

[Joe Fan]

So as I understand this, Flynn is saying he was in contact with the Russians in December (after the election). Let's assume that the report that he's going to testify that Trump told him to do it is accurate, and that Trump did in fact tell him to do it.....

There is no crime in transition teams contacting foreign govt post-election. It is a necessity of the job. Every transition govt in US history has done this. Obama did it. We want and even need them to do it.

I am more curious to learn where Tony Podesta has disappeared to. Why is that camp so silent? If you are serious about flipping someone who could lead you to even bigger fish, this is your guy. This one person could clean out a huge chunk of the Swamp.

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.
https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2014/08/29/latest-big-lie-we-have-no-strategy/​

.

 

[Joe Fan]

The 2008 Obama transition team also spoke with Hamas

 

[Joe Fan]

.....I did not do crim law but my sense on this is that if Mueller had "flipped" Flynn, as we have seen suggested, he would be making this plea later, not now. If he wanted Flynn to testify about someone else in a subsequent trial, then this plea would be hurting the credibility of his own witness. So, the timing here, to me at least, suggests no flip. Instead, what it might be is some attempt by Flynn to bargain for his son, who has also been in Mueller's sights (supposedly). I have personally witnessed AUSAs go after family members in this fashion, to get to who they think is the bigger fish.....

Here is Andrew McCarthy's 3-tweet take on this same issue I wrote about above

 

[Joe Fan]

When the Flynn plea hit, ABC's Brian Ross lied about it. His fake news went worldwide

It tanked the US stock market for about an hour, even shook world markets (including a dump of the Ruble). If you knew how the US media works and were able to see what was happening in the moment, it was an opportunity to build your account

ABC was forced to issue a retraction. But no repercussions for Brian Ross who has made many other unprofessional blunders like this over his career

from one of the Skype rooms --

[Friday, December 01, 2017 10:20 AM] Paul_Volcker: there is some US news that people are misinterpreting​

Another

<<< I think the markets misread all oft his, and it was an opportunity - Paul_Volcker, Yesterday 11:04 AM​

Just sayin

 

[Brad Austin]

It's common MSM practice these days. Everyone hears the manipulated allegation. 1/2 of them hear the retraction that kicks the legs out from under it.

Then countless people walk around believing the original allegation is an undisputed fact. Weaponized propaganda as usual.

 

[Joe Fan]

It's common MSM practice these days. Everyone hears the manipulated allegation. 1/2 of them hear the retraction that kicks the legs out from under it....l.

This specific guy (Brian Ross) has a history of going big with wrong stories
2001 Saddam behind Anthrax attacks
2006 Abramoff prosecuting Hastert
2007 Waterboarding story
2010 Toyota Prius defect footage
2012 Tea Party Aurora Shooting
2017 Trump Collusion

 

[Joe Fan]

The Flynn plea deal is only a couple pages
If I read it correctly, Flynn is immune from any crime he may have committed under Obama, but not under Trump.
If this is correct, it is kind of interesting.
Why would it be important to Flynn to be free to speak out during one time period but not the other?

 

[Brad Austin]

The Flynn plea deal is only a couple pages
If I read it correctly, Flynn is immune from any crime he may have committed under Obama, but not under Trump.
If this is correct, it is kind of interesting.
Why would it be important to Flynn to be free to speak out during one time period but not the other?

I was thinking about this earlier. Flynn and BO openly despise each other. Flynn was forced into retirement a year early by B.O. for speaking out against his weak foreign policy strategies and refusal to hear intelligence reports that conflicted their narrative. It was also made public Obama warned DT not to hire Flynn.

Instead of testifying DT or Senior transition team officials directed him to make contact with foreign diplomats, which is legal and routine, this may turn out to be the Dem's worst nightmare.

As BO's director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Flynn knows the deep dirt on military activities during the 2012-14 (Syria and ISIS) Obama years.

"According to what Flynn had stated in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking that the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe that he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration's public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.[35] Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that "Flynn confirmed [to Hersh] that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings ... about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad."

Flynn recounted that his agency was producing intelligence reports indicating that radical Islamists were the main force in the Syrian insurgency and "that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria". According to Flynn, these reports "got enormous pushback from the Obama administration," who he felt "did not want to hear the truth". According to former DIA official W. Patrick Lang: "Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria ... they shoved him out. He wouldn't shut up."[36]

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Flynn criticized the Obama administration for its delay in supporting the opposition in Syria, thereby allowing for the growth of Al Nusra and other extremist forces: "when you don't get in and help somebody, they're gonna find other means to achieve their goals" and that "we should have done more earlier on in this effort, you know, than we did."

 

[Joe Fan]

...Instead of testifying DT or Senior transition team officials directed him to make contact with foreign diplomats, which is legal and routine, this may turn out to be the Dem's worst nightmare.....

Could be. I have written alot about this possibility. Flipping Flynn plus the Podesta Brothers has the potential to blow DC up.

But arguing against this is the team Mueller established, which is mostly partisan Dems. Giving the appearance at least that they are their to protect their own. If Dems know how to do anything, it is how to circle the wagons and stick together.

 

[Joe Fan]

A case study in the attempted subversion of democracy ....

 

[Joe Fan]

You might even conclude its a Swamp out there

 

[Joe Fan]

Someone hand-picked this guy for both positions

 

[Garmel]

Someone hand-picked this guy for both positions

Will the mainstream media cover this?

 

[Joe Fan]

A case study in the attempted subversion of democracy ....

That guy was not the only one

 

[Seattle Husker]

Will the mainstream media cover this?

They did and covered the news that Mueller immediately removed him from the investigation the moment the IG brought the information to his attention. By any account, Mueller is running a high integrity investigation.

 

[Garmel]

They did and covered the news that Mueller immediately removed him from the investigation the moment the IG brought the information to his attention. By any account, Mueller is running a high integrity investigation.

Did they also cover his affiliation with Clinton and his association with the dossier? This is not a high integrity investigation. If it was 1) Mueller would have dismissed himself off of the case because of his close association with Comey 2) Mueller would not have put so many democrat donors on the case 3) it wouldn't look like a fishing expedition to get Trump.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Did they also cover his affiliation with Clinton and his association with the dossier? This is not a high integrity investigation. If it was 1) Mueller would have dismissed himself off of the case because of his close association with Comey 2) Mueller would not have put so many democrat donors on the case 3) it wouldn't look like a fishing expedition to get Trump.

I don't read the heavy partisan sits (right or left) so yes, they did note that he was a key figure in the Clinton email investigation. I got the impression that this was a fairly high ranking FBI person to be a central figure. The media also noted that this was a private exchange between 2 FBI peers commenting on one of the debates. It should also be noted that this exchange was not against any FBI rules but rather Mueller appears to have removed him to avoid the appearance of bias (my opinion).

#1 could be used against any former FBI or Federal Prosecutor in the last 2 decades. When he was appointed it was agreed that Mueller's integrity was impugn-able. #1 - #3 are politically motivated arguments by a group whose sole goal is to stop the investigation, or at least in hopes it fails.

 

[Garmel]

I don't read the heavy partisan sits (right or left) so yes, they did note that he was a key figure in the Clinton email investigation. I got the impression that this was a fairly high ranking FBI person to be a central figure. The media also noted that this was a private exchange between 2 FBI peers commenting on one of the debates. It should also be noted that this exchange was not against any FBI rules but rather Mueller appears to have removed him to avoid the appearance of bias (my opinion).

#1 could be used against any former FBI or Federal Prosecutor in the last 2 decades. When he was appointed it was agreed that Mueller's integrity was impugn-able. #1 - #3 are politically motivated arguments by a group whose sole goal is to stop the investigation, or at least in hopes it fails.

The problem with #2 just popped up and you're trying to tell me it's just a "politically motivated argument"? Wow, man. #3 is also occurring right before your eyes so I don't why it's so hard for you to see it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The problem with #2 just popped up and you're trying to tell me it's just a "politically motivated argument"? Holy ****, man.

Just popped up? In June POTUS and PT Barnum impersonator had this to say on Fox and Friends:

"I can say that the people that have been hired (for the independent Russia investigation) are all Hillary Clinton supporters, some of them worked for Hillary Clinton."

Here was Politifacts review of that statement in June. I'll reiterate...politically motivated argument.

 

[Garmel]

Just popped up? In June POTUS and PT Barnum impersonator had this to say on Fox and Friends:

"I can say that the people that have been hired (for the independent Russia investigation) are all Hillary Clinton supporters, some of them worked for Hillary Clinton."

Here was Politifacts review of that statement in June. I'll reiterate...politically motivated argument.

Oh, if Politifact says so it must be true. LOL! There are also reports that there are more than just one getting in trouble for anti-Trump statements. Like I said #2 is occurring before your eyes but you want to deny it. Five people possibly involved in this stuff.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Oh, if Politifact says so it must be true. LOL! There are also reports that there are more than just one getting in trouble for anti-Trump statements. Like I said #2 is occurring before your eyes but you want to deny it.

If someone else commits the same act at the FBI agent then I trust Mueller will handle it. It doesn't appear he was indecisive with the first episode based on the public timelines. Heck, the agent had already been reassigned back to pool by the time the story broke.

On #2 here is Politifact's meanderings on the most recent claim by Rep. Duffy of bias.

Here’s what we found:

• Six of the 15 lawyers have not made campaign contributions to any political campaigns at the federal level.

• Among the lawyers who did make contributions, a total of $62,043 went to Democrats and $2,750 to Republicans, according to the special counsel’s office.

• In terms of Clinton specifically, election filings indicate that three lawyers gave her 2016 presidential campaign a total of $700; and three gave a total of $18,100 to either her 2016 campaign or her 2008 run for the presidential nomination.

As for the implication of Duffy’s claim, here are points worth noting:

• One of the lawyers was a member of the team that won the 2015 conviction on federal corruption charges of Sheldon Silver, a Democrat who had been the longtime speaker of the New York State Assembly.

• The special counsel’s office pointed out to us that the legal standards for Justice Department hiring "prohibit the use of political or ideological affiliations to assess applicants."

 

[Joe Fan]

The FBI dude who was "reassigned" for being a Trump-hater was the same person who interviewed Flynn

It's a swamp I tell ya

 

[Joe Fan]

Good lord these people

 

[Seattle Husker]

Good lord these people

I know...Nick Short is a piece of work, right?