PDA

View Full Version : LTG Flynn



MisterVeritis
12-04-2018, 08:56 PM
Mueller says Flynn gave ‘substantial assistance’ to Russia probe, recommends no prison
Flynn participated in 19 interviews with the special counsel and other Justice Department prosecutors and aided in multiple probes, Mueller said in a heavily redacted filing that offered limited insight into the information Flynn provided.

Mueller bankrupted an honorable man.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/mueller-michael-flynn-report-1045360

Safety
12-04-2018, 09:09 PM
Recommended no prison, gave substantial assistance....sounds like that nothing burger is now the 4 horseman...

Peter1469
12-04-2018, 09:22 PM
Flynn plead guilty because he claimed he couldn't afford to fight it. Not sure what his attorney fees were but likely a lot more than he deserved out of this.

The FBI agents said he didn't lie.

Safety
12-04-2018, 09:23 PM
Well, we can't trust the FBI, Trump said so himself.

Tahuyaman
12-04-2018, 09:37 PM
Recommended no prison, gave substantial assistance....sounds like that nothing burger is now the 4 horseman...

Did Flynn give him the information which helped him indict foreign nationals who will never see the inside of an American court room?

MisterVeritis
12-04-2018, 09:38 PM
Recommended no prison, gave substantial assistance....sounds like that nothing burger is now the 4 horseman...
Yeah. Nothing. Because there was no collusion.

Tahuyaman
12-04-2018, 09:41 PM
Flynn plead guilty because he claimed he couldn't afford to fight it. Not sure what his attorney fees were but likely a lot more than he deserved out of this.

The FBI agents said he didn't lie.

What happened to Flynn should be the crime everyone's talking about.

Peter1469
12-04-2018, 10:01 PM
What happened to Flynn should be the crime everyone's talking about.

He was targeted because he pissed Obama off and then went to work for Trump. A double whammy.

Tahuyaman
12-04-2018, 10:07 PM
He was targeted because he pissed Obama off and then went to work for Trump. A double whammy.

Unchecked hyper partisan politics.

Peter1469
12-04-2018, 10:11 PM
Unchecked hyper partisan politics.

Corruption

Beevee
12-04-2018, 11:32 PM
The floor is falling in and there you all are under it, still believing it to be made of paper mache.

Jeb!
12-05-2018, 12:54 AM
Democrats in 2017 swore that Flynn committed treason, and now they're (at least claiming to be) happy that Flynn isn't going to jail? That figures, because every "progressive" hates America.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 01:01 AM
Democrats in 2017 swore that Flynn committed treason, and now they're (at least claiming to be) happy that Flynn isn't going to jail? That figures, because every "progressive" hates America.They like him now because they think he gave Mueller what he needs to indict Trump. They'll go back calling him a traitor when they finally figure out that he didn't have the goods on Trump.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 01:03 AM
The floor is falling in and there you all are under it, still believing it to be made of paper mache.


Ok..........

Jeb!
12-05-2018, 01:07 AM
They like him now because they think he gave Mueller what he needs to indict Trump. They'll go back calling him a traitor when they finally figure out that he didn't have the goods on Trump.Michael Flynn totally flipped, I know it because I watched MSNBC which always tells me what I want to hear, which is why Flynn's son does nothing but make fun of Democrats on Twitter 24/7.

Safety
12-05-2018, 07:41 AM
They like him now because they think he gave Mueller what he needs to indict Trump. They'll go back calling him a traitor when they finally figure out that he didn't have the goods on Trump.

Making asinine statements that have no relevance to what actually happened, is trolling. Point out one post that even had the semblance of someone “liking” Flynn.

DGUtley
12-05-2018, 07:59 AM
I haven't been following this but it seems to me that they went after Flynn b/c he worked on Trump's campaign - for a brief period of time. Same with that Greek guy, the taxi charge guy and I think there was one or two others. This is troubling to me -- the power of the government to bankrupt someone for political purposes under the guise of law enforcement.

Safety
12-05-2018, 08:08 AM
It wasn’t like it was some random people they pulled out of a hat, they were all tied to the Trump campaign. Maybe if they didn’t lie, they would not be in trouble, isn’t that the narrative that should be discussed?

I think it is absolutely ironic that the man that chanted “lock her up”, based upon no facts or trial, is the one that was facing prison time, but even that is superseded by the “nonexistent” Trump supporters that followed along with the mantra like we are some sort of banana republic, only now to be so concerned about someone being bankrupt due to this incident or having the perception of them being wrongly targeted.

If this wasn’t real and I was not living in this moment, I would swear this was a Tom Clancy novel.

DGUtley
12-05-2018, 08:21 AM
It wasn’t like it was some random people they pulled out of a hat, they were all tied to the Trump campaign. Maybe if they didn’t lie, they would not be in trouble, isn’t that the narrative that should be discussed? I think it is absolutely ironic that the man that chanted “lock her up”, based upon no facts or trial, is the one that was facing prison time, but even that is superseded by the “nonexistent” Trump supporters that followed along with the mantra like we are some sort of banana republic, only now to be so concerned about someone being bankrupt due to this incident or having the perception of them being wrongly targeted. If this wasn’t real and I was not living in this moment, I would swear this was a Tom Clancy novel.

First of all, I never once ever chanted: "Lock her up" -- I did agree that if she broke the law she should be charged. I do agree that if Flynn broke the law he should've been charged. It just seems here (and admittedly I don't know all the details) that this has been over the top investigated as to him and bankrupted him. It isn't that complicated or difficult. I know how this goes -- this constant demanding of meetings and statements and papers, it is incredibly demanding and expensive. Frequently, it is done solely to leverage, pressure and make costly. When Mordor does it, I think it can be a violation of due process.

Secondly, it seems here that there's no crime of collusion (it's not illegal for Trump to have colluded with Russia - I've said that since this started [I'm not the only one]. Politically stupid, yes, but not criminal) but they went digging for dirt on these people to attempt to find any crime on Trump. In other words, there's no crime here but to get to Target A, let's start looking at Targets BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ b/c they were friends with A, hoping to find a crime (anything) so we can leverage them against A. That is troubling b/c I think you have to start with a crime rather than start with a target. I think that's a due process issue. I can guarantee you that if you asked me - did you ever send an email to X about Y and I said "no" you could probably find an email over 31 years that calls into question that comment. AH-HA!! Now you have me on perjury and can get to Common. That should trouble all of us. Side note: On the papadopolus thing -- several other prosecutors looked at it and decided not to indict but Mueller did to leverage the Trump thing. Doesn't that trouble you? Remember, never take power for yourself that you aren't willing to give to your worst enemy.

Thirdly, I know Trump can be an asshole, but he's not a tinhorn dictator. He hasn't even remotely exceeded his executive order authority (Unlike Obama) IMHO. He has stayed well within the Constitution. Oh yes, he's made rumblings and statements of such but that's his game. His Schtick. He's done none of it. Banana republic? I truly honestly in my heart of heart believed that when Obama was issuing his executive orders. I understand you disagree.

Peter1469
12-05-2018, 08:44 AM
I think when the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn say that in their opinion Flynn did not lie Mueller has a serious credibility problem for charging Flynn with lying.

It is too bad that Flynn did not have the resources or outside help to fight this. The defenses first witnesses would be those FBI agents. Can anyone say that testimony would not torpedo Mueller's case?

Safety
12-05-2018, 08:49 AM
First of all, I never once ever chanted: "Lock her up" -- I did agree that if she broke the law she should be charged. I do agree that if Flynn broke the law he should've been charged. It just seems here (and admittedly I don't know all the details) that this has been over the top investigated as to him and bankrupted him. It isn't that complicated or difficult. I know how this goes -- this constant demanding of meetings and statements and papers, it is incredibly demanding and expensive. Frequently, it is done solely to leverage, pressure and make costly. When Mordor does it, I think it can be a violation of due process.

Secondly, it seems here that there's no crime of collusion (it's not illegal for Trump to have colluded with Russia - I've said that since this started [I'm not the only one]. Politically stupid, yes, but not criminal) but they went digging for dirt on these people to attempt to find any crime on Trump. In other words, there's no crime here but to get to Target A, let's start looking at Targets BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ b/c they were friends with A, hoping to find a crime (anything) so we can leverage them against A. That is troubling b/c I think you have to start with a crime rather than start with a target. I think that's a due process issue. I can guarantee you that if you asked me - did you ever send an email to X about Y and I said "no" you could probably find an email over 31 years that calls into question that comment. AH-HA!! Now you have me on perjury and can get to Common. That should trouble all of us. Side note: On the papadopolus thing -- several other prosecutors looked at it and decided not to indict but Mueller did to leverage the Trump thing. Doesn't that trouble you? Remember, never take power for yourself that you aren't willing to give to your worst enemy.

Thirdly, I know Trump can be an asshole, but he's not a tinhorn dictator. He hasn't even remotely exceeded his executive order authority (Unlike Obama) IMHO. He has stayed well within the Constitution. Oh yes, he's made rumblings and statements of such but that's his game. His Schtick. He's done none of it. Banana republic? I truly honestly in my heart of heart believed that when Obama was issuing his executive orders. I understand you disagree.

I have no doubt you disagree, and fully expected you to attempt to justify your position. However, knowing that it would an attempt to appear objective, it is anything but. In our justice system, you are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, so when I see people chant “lock her up”, or see people that see people that say that and have nothing to say about it, but now they are concerned with someone that lied to federal investigators and is facing prison time (or was), being bankrupt simply because they either lied to protect their president, or lied because they knew the truth would be worse. Sorry, but if the whole Clinton fiasco didn’t occur like right before this occurred, I might be swayed to see things from your perspective, however, I was able to see the reactions from many here in regards to Clinton and how empty that investigation was, and now I see the same ones whining about this investigation which actually has indictments and people going to jail. I would think that constitutional conservatives would care about law and order, but it seems that it only really applies to those that share the same ideology, everyone else be damned.

Your second point...Mueller has a mandate, it is available to anyone to view what his limitations and scope is, regarding this investigation. There is/was a GOP run house, senate, and Exectuative, and if at any time there was anything outside of Mueller’s scope and he reached for it, a rational person would think that the GOP run government would act, no?

Your third point...Yea, your opinion is that Obama exceeded his EO authority, yet how many were overturned by SCOTUS and how many were not? I also see that you limit your classification of a tinpot dictator to being one that is based off of EOs, well, what about the ones that try to jail their political enemies, or one that tries to silence the press, or one that tries to malign the FBI or Intelligence community, or one that is committing a violation to the emoluments clause, etc. etc.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 10:25 AM
It wasn’t like it was some random people they pulled out of a hat, they were all tied to the Trump campaign.

Yes, the Obama regime spied on Americans, unmasked Americans, and went after Americans simply because they were in the opposing political party. Obama and his minions should be tried. Many should be jailed.

Maybe if they didn’t lie, they would not be in trouble, isn’t that the narrative that should be discussed?
Perjury traps are an evil mechanism.

I think it is absolutely ironic that the man that chanted “lock her up”, based upon no facts or trial, is the one that was facing prison time, but even that is superseded by the “nonexistent” Trump supporters that followed along with the mantra like we are some sort of banana republic, only now to be so concerned about someone being bankrupt due to this incident or having the perception of them being wrongly targeted.
It is as if you don't know "lock her up" is a shorthand way of saying investigate, indict, try, convict and then lock her up.

If this wasn’t real and I was not living in this moment, I would swear this was a Tom Clancy novel.
Cool.

Safety
12-05-2018, 10:31 AM
Yes, the Obama regime spied on Americans, unmasked Americans, and went after Americans simply because they were in the opposing political party. Obama and his minions should be tried. Many should be jailed.

Perjury traps are an evil mechanism.

It is as if you don't know "lock her up" is a shorthand way of saying investigate, indict, try, convict and then lock her up.

Cool.

It appears you would be happier living under a banana republic.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 10:33 AM
It appears you would be happier living under a banana republic.
I often wish you were smarter.

My team did not use the federal police and intelligence agencies in a coup attempt against the opposition party. Your's did.

Safety
12-05-2018, 11:06 AM
I often wish you were smarter.

My team did not use the federal police and intelligence agencies in a coup attempt against the opposition party. Your's did.

First, please indicate where I have claimed to be affiliated with any party.
Second, coup attempt :rofl:

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 11:26 AM
First, please indicate where I have claimed to be affiliated with any party.
Second, coup attempt :rofl:
Whether you claim to be a liberal or not is irrelevant. That is where your heart is.

And yes, coup attempt.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 11:28 AM
Making asinine statements that have no relevance to what actually happened, is trolling. Point out one post that even had the semblance of someone “liking” Flynn. Did you say something about trolling?

Captdon
12-05-2018, 01:33 PM
Recommended no prison, gave substantial assistance....sounds like that nothing burger is now the 4 horseman...24814

Captdon
12-05-2018, 01:35 PM
The floor is falling in and there you all are under it, still believing it to be made of paper mache.

Yea, right.

Hoosier8
12-05-2018, 01:46 PM
It appears you would be happier living under a banana republic.

It appears you are defending one.

DGUtley
12-05-2018, 01:54 PM
I have no doubt you disagree, and fully expected you to attempt to justify your position. However, knowing that it would an attempt to appear objective, it is anything but. In our justice system, you are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, so when I see people chant “lock her up”, or see people that see people that say that and have nothing to say about it, but now they are concerned with someone that lied to federal investigators and is facing prison time (or was), being bankrupt simply because they either lied to protect their president, or lied because they knew the truth would be worse. Sorry, but if the whole Clinton fiasco didn’t occur like right before this occurred, I might be swayed to see things from your perspective, however, I was able to see the reactions from many here in regards to Clinton and how empty that investigation was, and now I see the same ones whining about this investigation which actually has indictments and people going to jail. I would think that constitutional conservatives would care about law and order, but it seems that it only really applies to those that share the same ideology, everyone else be damned.
I don't think that the Clinton investigation was empty, maybe that's the problem. There was a violation of law there. I think everybody admits that. The issue was whether it was negligent or reckless. I don't understand the rest of your point as responsive to my comments, but ok.

Your second point...Mueller has a mandate, it is available to anyone to view what his limitations and scope is, regarding this investigation. There is/was a GOP run house, senate, and Exectuative, and if at any time there was anything outside of Mueller’s scope and he reached for it, a rational person would think that the GOP run government would act, no?

I thought I was clear on my point.

Your third point...Yea, your opinion is that Obama exceeded his EO authority, yet how many were overturned by SCOTUS and how many were not? I also see that you limit your classification of a tinpot dictator to being one that is based off of EOs, well, what about the ones that try to jail their political enemies, or one that tries to silence the press, or one that tries to malign the FBI or Intelligence community, or one that is committing a violation to the emoluments clause, etc. etc.

Well, the one time that the R's took it up Obama lost. There were several other times that they should've and didn't. That's on them. I judge tyranny by conduct and actions. I get he's an asshole; but, he's stayed well within the law. Obama didn't do that.

1. When has Trump tried to jail his political enemies.
2. When has Trump tried to silence the press?
3. Yes, he has maligned the FBI - some would argue rightfully so.
4. He is not (cannot) violating the emoluments clause.

roadmaster
12-05-2018, 06:28 PM
Flynn claimed he didn't talk to Russia about the Trump administration which was true but he did on behalf of Israel on the UN vote. Remember when Obama asked ours to not vote and it ended up 14 to 0. He got in trouble over Israeli UN vote. It was over the Israel settlements in the West Bank trying to talk Russia into vetoing it.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 06:36 PM
I haven't been following this but it seems to me that they went after Flynn b/c he worked on Trump's campaign - for a brief period of time. Same with that Greek guy, the taxi charge guy and I think there was one or two others. This is troubling to me -- the power of the government to bankrupt someone for political purposes under the guise of law enforcement.
Of course they went after Flynn because he threw in with Trump. Why would anyone doubt that? Even the FBI said that he didn’t lie or deceive them. Pure politically motivated corruption.

roadmaster
12-05-2018, 06:44 PM
It's all there, some redaction but Case 1-17-cr-0023-EGS, it's online for anyone to see.

Safety
12-05-2018, 09:11 PM
I don't think that the Clinton investigation was empty, maybe that's the problem. There was a violation of law there. I think everybody admits that. The issue was whether it was negligent or reckless. I don't understand the rest of your point as responsive to my comments, but ok.


I thought I was clear on my point.

Based upon the information presented, there was an investigation. During the investigation, many...many...many here had already adjudicated her guilty, and they proceeded to follow the mantra of “lock her up”. Fast forward to Trump’s election, the same people that wanted the investigation of Clinton to last indefinitely, suddenly didn’t seem to care for law and order, or the investigational process, and even called it a “soft coup”. They even show praise when the POTUS tweets his thoughts about how the investigation should be ended and how witnesses should not worry because the pardon is on the table. Most first year law students can make a case of obstruction out of that fact by itself.



Well, the one time that the R's took it up Obama lost. There were several other times that they should've and didn't. That's on them. I judge tyranny by conduct and actions. I get he's an asshole; but, he's stayed well within the law. Obama didn't do that.

So, one EO was thrown out for constitutionality? What about this one from Trump?..https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-overturns-trumps-executive-orders-on-firing-federal-workers

Or how about his travel ban E.O, that was overturned? Then there’s Truman’s E.O. that seized private steel mills, but I don’t recall history claiming Truman was a dictator...

So, based upon your premise, your accusation of tyranny seems to be lacking in objectivity.




1. When has Trump tried to jail his political enemies.
2. When has Trump tried to silence the press?
3. Yes, he has maligned the FBI - some would argue rightfully so.
4. He is not (cannot) violating the emoluments clause.

1. President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html

2. "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" - https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/politics/donald-trump-media-tweet/index.html

3. “Rightly so”? No, not even in jest.

4. Seems like some judges disagree with your opinion....https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 09:22 PM
Based upon the information presented, there was an investigation. During the investigation, many...many...many here had already adjudicated her guilty, and they proceeded to follow the mantra of “lock her up”.


It is not an investigation when the desired outcome is pre-decided.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 09:26 PM
Fast forward to Trump’s election, the same people that wanted the investigation of Clinton to last indefinitely, suddenly didn’t seem to care for law and order, or the investigational process, and even called it a “soft coup”.


The Obama regime used the federal police and intelligence agencies to spy on Obama's political opponents. Once in office, the same coup plotters continued their coup attempt. This was not an investigation. It never has been. It is not one today.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 09:28 PM
4. Seems like some judges disagree with your opinion....https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed
Emoluments. The Federal judge, a Clinton appointee, (ahem Justice Roberts) should be removed. The judge does not know the Constitution.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 09:41 PM
....1. President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html



Your point would be more effective if you didn't cite examples of two people who committed criminal acts.

Safety
12-05-2018, 09:52 PM
It is not an investigation when the desired outcome is pre-decided.

“Lock her up, lock her up”

Safety
12-05-2018, 09:53 PM
Emoluments. The Federal judge, a Clinton appointee, (ahem Justice Roberts) should be removed. The judge does not know the Constitution.

That’s your answer for everything, isn’t it? When a judge doesn’t agree with you, they must be removed or hanged, right? The world doesn’t work that way.

Safety
12-05-2018, 09:54 PM
Your point would be more effective if you didn't cite examples of two people who committed criminal acts.


The effectiveness of my point is not your concern, thanks.

Safety
12-05-2018, 09:55 PM
The Obama regime used the federal police and intelligence agencies to spy on Obama's political opponents. Once in office, the same coup plotters continued their coup attempt. This was not an investigation. It never has been. It is not one today.

I also read that once in a novel, imagination is a wonderful thing.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 09:57 PM
The effectiveness of my point is not your concern, thanks.
This is a discussion forum. If you choose not to discuss the merits or lack thereof concerning your comments, why are you here?

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 10:03 PM
The Obama regime used the federal police and intelligence agencies to spy on Obama's political opponents. Once in office, the same coup plotters continued their coup attempt. This was not an investigation. It never has been. It is not one today.


The Obama administration targeted Fox News's James Rosen because he asked questions Obama found uncomfortable to answer.

He used the IRS to silence conservative oriented non-profit organizations because they opposed many of his policy ideas.


The Obama administration used covert intelligence agencies to eaves drop on the communications of people guilty of nothing nor suspected of anything.

Safety
12-05-2018, 10:39 PM
This is a discussion forum. If you choose not to discuss the merits or lack thereof concerning your comments, why are you here?

Yes, this is a discussion forum, however, it is not limited to you or your concerns. If I choose to post one reply a day or none at all, that is my prerogative. I am not here to placate you or your wishes.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 11:15 PM
That’s your answer for everything, isn’t it? When a judge doesn’t agree with you, they must be removed or hanged, right? The world doesn’t work that way.
I admit the emoluments clause is complicated. I bet it would take a law clerk an hour to figure it out.

MisterVeritis
12-05-2018, 11:18 PM
It is not an investigation when the desired outcome is pre-decided.

“Lock her up, lock her up”
On this, we can agree. Lock her up if we cannot convict her of a crime we can execute her for.

Tahuyaman
12-05-2018, 11:28 PM
Yes, this is a discussion forum, however, it is not limited to you or your concerns. If I choose to post one reply a day or none at all, that is my prerogative. I am not here to placate you or your wishes.

Hmmm. Odd.

Safety
12-05-2018, 11:39 PM
It is not an investigation when the desired outcome is pre-decided.

On this, we can agree. Lock her up if we cannot convict her of a crime we can execute her for.

:biglaugh:

Tahuyaman
12-06-2018, 12:09 AM
Too funny.

DGUtley
12-06-2018, 09:13 AM
Based upon the information presented, there was an investigation. During the investigation, many...many...many here had already adjudicated her guilty, and they proceeded to follow the mantra of “lock her up”. Fast forward to Trump’s election, the same people that wanted the investigation of Clinton to last indefinitely, suddenly didn’t seem to care for law and order, or the investigational process, and even called it a “soft coup”. They even show praise when the POTUS tweets his thoughts about how the investigation should be ended and how witnesses should not worry because the pardon is on the table. Most first year law students can make a case of obstruction out of that fact by itself.

No. There wasn't an investigation b/c an investigation entails all of the facts -- we know that they didn't interview everyone and she destroyed some 33000 emails.

I do think it is a soft coup, of sorts. There was no case for obstruction when the counsel was initiated, that came after. Again, there is no crime for collusion here. Maybe we should make it a crime, maybe we shouldn't that is not for me to decide. There is no impeachable offense -- other than he beat Clinton and he's an asshole that they don't like.


So, one EO was thrown out for constitutionality? What about this one from Trump?..https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-overturns-trumps-executive-orders-on-firing-federal-workers Or how about his travel ban E.O, that was overturned? Then there’s Truman’s E.O. that seized private steel mills, but I don’t recall history claiming Truman was a dictator... So, based upon your premise, your accusation of tyranny seems to be lacking in objectivity.
Look, because a federal district court judge blocks an EO doesn't make the EO unconstitutional. Particularly, if that judge makes a political decision, which these obviously are. We know that the SCOTUS pelosi-slapped the appellate court over the blockage of Trump's EO on the travel ban (you word, not mine). So, again, Trump has been well within his EO authority.

Yes, WPOAT had one reversed. Maybe more but I distinctly remember one b/c it involved Cordray who was Lt.Gov here in Ohio. It's not my problem or fault that the R's were to gutless to take more up, they should've. That doesn't change the fact that he was acting like a King with them -- in violation of our SCOTUS.




1. President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html
2. "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" - https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/politics/donald-trump-media-tweet/index.html
3. “Rightly so”? No, not even in jest.
4. Seems like some judges disagree with your opinion....https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed
1. He didn't.
2. He didn't.
3. Yes, rightly so. The FBI abused its power here.
4. Again, the presidency is not an office of "trust" or "profit" according to the people that have historically written on this. Hence, without getting to the facts, he cannot violate the Emoluments Clause. This isn't my idea, this is what the scholars have written that have studied the drafting.

Tahuyaman
12-06-2018, 09:34 AM
It's remarkable how some people can be so upset by the things Trump hasn't done.

Safety
12-06-2018, 10:02 AM
No. There wasn't an investigation b/c an investigation entails all of the facts -- we know that they didn't interview everyone and she destroyed some 33000 emails.

Yes, there was an investigation. An investigation that does not satisfy someone's subjective criticism =/= there was no investigation. Going by "your" standard, that means Kavanagh was not investigated, because they didn't interview everyone. Further expounding on your standard, that would mean the Mueller investigation is being thorough, which should be heralded by those that respect the Constitution....


I do think it is a soft coup, of sorts. There was no case for obstruction when the counsel was initiated, that came after. Again, there is no crime for collusion here. Maybe we should make it a crime, maybe we shouldn't that is not for me to decide. There is no impeachable offense -- other than he beat Clinton and he's an asshole that they don't like.

Evidently, a Republican house, senate, and executive appointees see it differently than you do. As for any impeachable offense, it is a little premature for you to think so, given the investigation is still underway. I mean, do you already have a decision on the case when it is still pending? Smells....bias-esque.



Look, because a federal district court judge blocks an EO doesn't make the EO unconstitutional. Particularly, if that judge makes a political decision, which these obviously are. We know that the SCOTUS pelosi-slapped the appellate court over the blockage of Trump's EO on the travel ban (you word, not mine). So, again, Trump has been well within his EO authority.

Evidently, that is exactly what it means when a federal judge strikes down parts of an EO that is unconstitutional. So, now you join the camp of judges being political when they don't make the decisions you want them to make? Thanks for showing your "tell" about how objective you are about our justice system....


Yes, WPOAT had one reversed. Maybe more but I distinctly remember one b/c it involved Cordray who was Lt.Gov here in Ohio. It's not my problem or fault that the R's were to gutless to take more up, they should've. That doesn't change the fact that he was acting like a King with them -- in violation of our SCOTUS.

I don't know how many the WPOAT will have reversed, because he is still in office, however, we do know that Obama had "one" reversed. One. With a GOP house and senate...one. For anyone to highlight one reversal of an EO as being "tyranny" or "tyranny-esque", and to further suggest he is the worst of all time, is laughable considering the amount of soul draining one must endure to support a POTUS that not only is the complete opposite of any set of morals and values the indignant right likes to espouse, but has set the stage for any future discussions involving values, morals, and decency.




1. He didn't.
2. He didn't.
3. Yes, rightly so. The FBI abused its power here.
4. Again, the presidency is not an office of "trust" or "profit" according to the people that have historically written on this. Hence, without getting to the facts, he cannot violate the Emoluments Clause. This isn't my idea, this is what the scholars have written that have studied the drafting.

1. I posted the link, you saying differently won't cut it.
2. I posted the link, you saying differently won't cut it.
3. I disagree, however, it is noted for future discussions.
4. Like I stated in my earlier response, evidently judges disagree with your opinion, we will see how it pans out.

DGUtley
12-06-2018, 11:16 AM
Yes, there was an investigation. An investigation that does not satisfy someone's subjective criticism =/= there was no investigation. Going by "your" standard, that means Kavanagh was not investigated, because they didn't interview everyone. Further expounding on your standard, that would mean the Mueller investigation is being thorough, which should be heralded by those that respect the Constitution....

One was a criminal investigation, one was not. I do think, however, that they interviewed all of the witnesses in the Kavanaugh matter.


Evidently, a Republican house, senate, and executive appointees see it differently than you do. As for any impeachable offense, it is a little premature for you to think so, given the investigation is still underway. I mean, do you already have a decision on the case when it is still pending? Smells....bias-esque.

Biased? No. It is the ability to see where things are going based on experience.


Evidently, that is exactly what it means when a federal judge strikes down parts of an EO that is unconstitutional. So, now you join the camp of judges being political when they don't make the decisions you want them to make? Thanks for showing your "tell" about how objective you are about our justice system....
When judges cite campaign statements as justification for their rulings in contravention of statutory law, yes - political. I objectively look at opinions for intellectual honesty, not specific agreement. You should try it.


I don't know how many the WPOAT will have reversed, because he is still in office, however, we do know that Obama had "one" reversed. One. With a GOP house and senate...one. For anyone to highlight one reversal of an EO as being "tyranny" or "tyranny-esque", and to further suggest he is the worst of all time, is laughable considering the amount of soul draining one must endure to support a POTUS that not only is the complete opposite of any set of morals and values the indignant right likes to espouse, but has set the stage for any future discussions involving values, morals, and decency.

When the executive intentionally contravenes the legislative branch in violation of the constitution -- which WPOAT did many times, it is tyrannical.



1. I posted the link, you saying differently won't cut it.
2. I posted the link, you saying differently won't cut it.
3. I disagree, however, it is noted for future discussions.
4. Like I stated in my earlier response, evidently judges disagree with your opinion, we will see how it pans out.
1. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
2. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
3. So noted.
4. So noted.

Peter1469
12-06-2018, 11:19 AM
One was a criminal investigation, one was not. I do think, however, that they interviewed all of the witnesses in the Kavanaugh matter.



Biased? No. It is the ability to see where things are going based on experience.


When judges cite campaign statements as justification for their rulings in contravention of statutory law, yes - political. I objectively look at opinions for intellectual honesty, not specific agreement. You should try it.



When the executive intentionally contravenes the legislative branch in violation of the constitution -- which WPOAT did many times, it is tyrannical.


1. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
2. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
3. So noted.
4. So noted.
They interviewed all of the eye witnesses in the Kavanaugh instance.

Safety
12-06-2018, 11:44 AM
One was a criminal investigation, one was not. I do think, however, that they interviewed all of the witnesses in the Kavanaugh matter.

Be that as it may, you are free to make that distinction, but you still didn't address the Mueller investigation.


Biased? No. It is the ability to see where things are going based on experience.

So, you are appealing to authority. That is a fallacy.


When judges cite campaign statements as justification for their rulings in contravention of statutory law, yes - political. I objectively look at opinions for intellectual honesty, not specific agreement. You should try it.

The judge was citing a public statement, it is irrelevant that it was made during a campaign or at the street corner. You say you objectively look at opinions, your actions show otherwise. Case in point being a lower burden of proof for the term of tyranny being used for someone with a different political ideology, and a lower level of standard for the office of the presidency based upon the political affiliation of the person holding the office. That isn't objectivity, that is partisanship.


When the executive intentionally contravenes the legislative branch in violation of the constitution -- which WPOAT did many times, it is tyrannical.

Yet, in all the accusations you can find, there was only one time an E.O was overturned. However....
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-overturns-trumps-executive-orders-on-firing-federal-workers...then Trump suggests that he can overturn a Constitutional amendment without Congress. Switch the names of the affected parties and it would be mass pandemonium at tPF.



1. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
2. Federal district court judge - will be reversed.
3. So noted.
4. So noted.

1. We'll see
2. We'll see
3. Copy
4. Copy

Peter1469
12-06-2018, 11:57 AM
Be that as it may, you are free to make that distinction, but you still didn't address the Mueller investigation.



So, you are appealing to authority. That is a fallacy.



The judge was citing a public statement, it is irrelevant that it was made during a campaign or at the street corner. You say you objectively look at opinions, your actions show otherwise. Case in point being a lower burden of proof for the term of tyranny being used for someone with a different political ideology, and a lower level of standard for the office of the presidency based upon the political affiliation of the person holding the office. That isn't objectivity, that is partisanship.



Yet, in all the accusations you can find, there was only one time an E.O was overturned. However....
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-overturns-trumps-executive-orders-on-firing-federal-workers...then Trump suggests that he can overturn a Constitutional amendment without Congress. Switch the names of the affected parties and it would be mass pandemonium at tPF.



1. We'll see
2. We'll see
3. Copy
4. Copy
With respect to campaign speech, SCOTUS has always held that it does not affect a future law or policy. The lower court ignored clear precedence.

Safety
12-06-2018, 12:16 PM
With respect to campaign speech, SCOTUS has always held that it does not affect a future law or policy. The lower court ignored clear precedence.

Do you have a link to the SCOTUS's decision on that matter? Because the only one I know of is the travel ban where Roberts said they didn't consider the statements of the President, but the authority of the office.

Peter1469
12-06-2018, 03:48 PM
Do you have a link to the SCOTUS's decision on that matter? Because the only one I know of is the travel ban where Roberts said they didn't consider the statements of the President, but the authority of the office.

Kleindienst v. Mandel (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/case.html) (1972), the court points out that it generally does not look beyond the “facially legitimate and bona fide” reasons offered by the executive branch- they look at the law or policy and not statements outside of that document (the travel ban case expanded that to look at it under a rational basis review). Also there are cases in general that say when reviewing a statute, regulation or EO, you look to the 4 corners of the document and only look to other evidence if the document is unclear.

Safety
12-06-2018, 04:59 PM
Kleindienst v. Mandel (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/case.html) (1972), the court points out that it generally does not look beyond the “facially legitimate and bona fide” reasons offered by the executive branch- they look at the law or policy and not statements outside of that document (the travel ban case expanded that to look at it under a rational basis review). Also there are cases in general that say when reviewing a statute, regulation or EO, you look to the 4 corners of the document and only look to other evidence if the document is unclear.

Looking at the case summary, it states that this case was brought forward to compel the attorney general to grant a non-immigration visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician. Based upon his previous visa to the states, his unscheduled activities during that period were the basis of his denial. Since he was originally ineligible based upon the statue barring anyone that advocates or publishes "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism", the attorney general did not have to grant the visa.

The court held that the attorney general (executive branch) did not have to grant the visa, because the Belgium was ineligible based upon his actions, and the court didn't overweigh the first amendment rights of those that wanted to hear him speak over the attorney general's legitimate decision to not grant the visa. This is vastly different than the President making public comments about banning a religion (muslim ban) from entering the country and not having a legitimate or bona fide reason to deny the visa. Using the argument that he can do whatever he wants because he is the President, does not validate the decision made when the subject of the decision is eligible for the visa.

Peter1469
12-06-2018, 05:16 PM
Looking at the case summary, it states that this case was brought forward to compel the attorney general to grant a non-immigration visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician. Based upon his previous visa to the states, his unscheduled activities during that period were the basis of his denial. Since he was originally ineligible based upon the statue barring anyone that advocates or publishes "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism", the attorney general did not have to grant the visa.

The court held that the attorney general (executive branch) did not have to grant the visa, because the Belgium was ineligible based upon his actions, and the court didn't overweigh the first amendment rights of those that wanted to hear him speak over the attorney general's legitimate decision to not grant the visa. This is vastly different than the President making public comments about banning a religion (muslim ban) from entering the country and not having a legitimate or bona fide reason to deny the visa. Using the argument that he can do whatever he wants because he is the President, does not validate the decision made when the subject of the decision is eligible for the visa.
And the Court looked at the statute not outside evidence- "the court points out that it generally does not look beyond the “facially legitimate and bona fide” reasons offered by the executive branch"