It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

page: 32
40
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Except he was fired for his actions on handling the Clinton fiasco, among a few other failures.

No he wasn't.

Trump said it in clear words why he fired Jim Comey....as it seems I need to repeat because of "the Russia thing with Trump and Russiar". It was clear, and all your spin won't be able to detract from that.




Even now there is absolutely nothing that comes close to Trump colluding with Russia in order to win a presidential election.


No? I beg to differ. Let me enlighten you then and I'll highlight all the important parts so that you're certain not to ignore them as always:



Michael Zeldin, a former senior U.S. Justice Department official, said that Flynn has been caught in numerous lies and that four false statements were documented in the charges to which he pled.

"This is all he gets charged with?" Zeldin asked. "For a prosecutor to give someone this big a break, assuming there's no other indictment that's been sealed ... then he's got something important to say."

Zeldin said Flynn's attempt to dissuade Russia from supporting a United Nations resolution condemning Israel's approval of settlements on occupied Palestinian lands "at a minimum implicates Kushner," whom Trump has assigned to try to broker a Middle East peace agreement. Multiple news outlets reported Friday that it was Kushner or Trump who directed Flynn to contact various countries about the U.N. resolution. The New York Times reported that Mueller's investigators have learned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries on Israel's behalf; the investigators have evidence that Flynn and Kushner led that effort.



The above, is the textbook definition of collusion, and in case this little factoid slips by you:



collusion


[kuh-loo-zhuh n]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:
Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement





posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Same thing with the Obama Senate seat pay-to-play investigation.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

Same thing with the Obama Senate seat pay-to-play investigation.


Lol, I'd forgotten about that one.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Then I guess all those people who later on testified under oath that the investigations were not disrupted in any way should be indicted for lying under oath like Flynn?


That’s not really the point.

If there was any intention to obstruct justice, that doesn’t go away or become irrelevant just because it failed to work.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Hard to prove intent when nothing was obstructed.

Especially hard to prove it when Hillary had all kinds of criminal things going on, Comey admitted as much in his conference and then proceeded to simply say he felt there was no intent so ... no crime.
edit on 1-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: face23785
That's some professional projecting. The only ones twisted into pretzels right now are those who still think this is gonna lead to Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. There's still zero evidence of that whatsoever.


i'm pretty sure they'll get him on obstruction of justice, at this point.


That's just wishful thinking then, because there's zero evidence of it in the public sphere. Firing the director of the FBI doesn't stop investigations, so it wasn't even an attempt to obstruct. That's a red herring #resisters are clinging to because there's nothing else left at this point.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: alphabetaone

Then I guess all those people who later on testified under oath that the investigations were not disrupted in any way should be indicted for lying under oath like Flynn? Yes?


You're in full-swing 'whataboutism', aren't you? The old effective Soviet propaganda tool seems to still work wonders with the morally bereft. We're not talking about what others did or did not do, we're talking about Trump's firing of Jim Comey.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I hope this entire administration gets wiped out from all of this, and then we'll have the avalanche that's going to take out this gross republican congress.
That'll be a real swamp draining.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

In legal terms, whataboutism is called precedent.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
That's just wishful thinking then, because there's zero evidence of it in the public sphere. Firing the director of the FBI doesn't stop investigations, so it wasn't even an attempt to obstruct. That's a red herring #resisters are clinging to because there's nothing else left at this point.


i have to reiterate my earlier point that just because something has not been made public knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as well as my earlier point that attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime even if justice wasn't obstructed.

i think the forever-trump crowd is clinging to delusion at this point, trying to pretend today's events are insignificant, or that they would necessarily be privy to every relevant fact.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Hard to prove intent when nothing was obstructed.

Especially hard to prove it when Hillary had all kinds of criminal things going on, Comey admitted as much in his conference and then proceeded to simply say he felt there was no intent so ... no crime.


I don’t care about all that.
It’s nothing to do with what I said, or what you said.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: xuenchen

I guess the FBI ran out of immunity deals during the Clinton email 'matter.'



Yes, that was the 'matter' that Comey prejudged and decided let Clinton off before he even interviewed her, which by the way was not even done under oath so she could lie with impunity.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: alphabetaone

In legal terms, whataboutism is called precedent.


Oh come on now, don't undermine a liberal buzzword that helps them ignore arguments... it's not fair to them.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

But that's my point, if there was no actual obstruction of any kind, then how do you prove someone intended to obstruct something with an action?



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: face23785
That's just wishful thinking then, because there's zero evidence of it in the public sphere. Firing the director of the FBI doesn't stop investigations, so it wasn't even an attempt to obstruct. That's a red herring #resisters are clinging to because there's nothing else left at this point.


i have to reiterate my earlier point that just because something has not been made public knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as well as my earlier point that attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime even if justice wasn't obstructed.



That's called conspiracy,is it not. I think Mueller knows what he is doing and so does Trump. Trump sealed his fate by his twitters and not staying on top of his staff's emails.

Total chaos in the WH with staff looking for a way out.

www.axios.com...
edit on 1-12-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

But that's my point, if there was no actual obstruction of any kind, then how do you prove someone intended to obstruct something with an action?


you check out all the times they said on television that was their intention, or you get testimony from people they said it to, or you find written documents pertaining to their intentions, like first drafts of 'you're fired' letters...

...any of this ringing a bell?



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

If that were the way it's done, plenty more people would have been indicted by now from all sides.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: xuenchen

I guess the FBI ran out of immunity deals during the Clinton email 'matter.'



Yes, that was the 'matter' that Comey prejudged and decided let Clinton off before he even interviewed her, which by the way was not even done under oath so she could lie with impunity.


FBI Form 302. Google it.

It allows the FBI to be as corrupt as they want to be without any oversight or accountability.

The FBI policy of using Form 302 to 'take notes' -- instead of recording FBI interviews -- must be abolished.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I just threw up a little in my mouth.


I'm throwin' a twenty-four of cold ones on the table Trump tried to bury this to save his son-in-laws arse.

When he plays that card, his stalward supporters will only become more steadfast in their support, further polarizing the US.

Such a sad thing to see the impending implosion of a country.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: alphabetaone

In legal terms, whataboutism is called precedent.


Oh come on now, don't undermine a liberal buzzword that helps them ignore arguments... it's not fair to them.


Yes well, in order for it to actually be legal precedent, specific case law would need to be cited.

What right-wing whataboutism amounts to is nothing more than childish deflection.

Nice try though.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join