Author Topic: The Great Unmasking  (Read 27461 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
The Great Unmasking
« on: May 14, 2020, 08:48:45 AM »
It’s turning out to be the biggest case of corruption in America’s history so maybe it should have its own thread.

For those that don’t know, the collection of intelligence on US persons while in the US is against the law without a specific warrant from a FISA court. “Material on US persons that is collected inadvertently through legitimate counterintelligence operations is masked unless there is a pressing threat that requires an extremely limited exposure of their identities. When people are unmasked, their identities are supposed to be kept within a limited distribution - it’s a criminal act to leak their identity to anyone not directly involved in the counterintelligence effort. “

It’s important to note that “presidential transition teams have legitimate reasons for contacting foreign diplomats. The whole purpose of presidential transition teams is to prepare well enough to perform on Day One of a new administration. The fact that Flynn was in contact with Kislyak was not unusual nor actionable. For that matter, neither was his discussion about sanctions, which after all relate to national policy and for which the incoming Trump administration would soon be responsible.“

Now we have the declassified document that Catherine Herridge published on CBS News. It lists the “unmasking requests made between November 8, 2016 — Election Day, for those who don’t recall — and the end of January 2017, when Trump took office. No fewer than sixteen officials requested the unmasking on the Kislyak conversation, with requests beginning on November 30 and continuing to January 11.” The requesters:

Samantha Power: seven requests
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: three requests
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew: two requests
CIA Director John Brennan: two requests
Vice President Joe Biden: one request
FBI Director James Comey: one request
Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough: one request

There are also a handful of requests from Treasury officials.

Quote
Flynn’s identity, if it needed to be exposed at all, should have only been given to an extremely narrow set of individuals, maybe just three with specific counter-intel authority — Clapper, Brennan, and Comey.

It wasn’t though. Samantha Power denies ever making these requests. Clapper says,  “I don’t recall what prompted a request that was made on my behalf for unmasking” Flynn. That’s some good lawyer speak, he’s distancing himself.

Somebody also leaked to the media. We should find out who.


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2020, 10:00:40 AM »
Given that Judge Emmet Sullivan is now inviting amicus curiae, since he clearly isn't impressed with Trump attorney William Barr's attempt to torpedo a valid prosecution, the bigger issue might be the black eye that Barr and Trump will suffer in their attempt to politicize the Justice Department.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2020, 10:03:41 AM »
The judge is creating his own prosecution team to continue the effort. I think everyone knows this will be ruled unconstitutional. Surely you know that.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2020, 10:37:05 AM »
You saying something is unconstitutional (or illegal) doesn't magically make it so.

Where in the constitution is a judge constrained from inviting amicus curiae?  The specific article and wording will be helpful.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2020, 11:26:23 AM »
Oh, you're gonna pretend he's not doing what he's doing. OK. Have fun with that.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2020, 12:25:45 PM »
Law states the unmaskers are a limited group. Directors don't make that cut. Even a judge of Sullivan's limited focus can't deny that.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2020, 01:35:14 PM »
Given that Judge Emmet Sullivan is now inviting amicus curiae, since he clearly isn't impressed with Trump attorney William Barr's attempt to torpedo a valid prosecution, the bigger issue might be the black eye that Barr and Trump will suffer in their attempt to politicize the Justice Department.

The judge is creating his own prosecution team to continue the effort. I think everyone knows this will be ruled unconstitutional. Surely you know that.

I think its more likely the Judge fully appreciates the scope and significance of what has been presented to him, and he's seeking outside perspective on it to ensure that he isn't "being spun" for purely political motives. This is something that even I would be likely to go "Trust, but verify" on with regards to the Barr Justice Department.

I don't think Barr is "Trump's lapdog" but I would still take measures to make sure what Justice is providing is on the up and up, as their accusations basically claim the Obama Admin politicized things which never should have been, and if they were political under Obama, there is reason to believe they might have remained so under Trump.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2020, 02:07:02 PM »
I think its more likely the Judge fully appreciates the scope and significance of what has been presented to him, and he's seeking outside perspective on it to ensure that he isn't "being spun" for purely political motives. This is something that even I would be likely to go "Trust, but verify" on with regards to the Barr Justice Department.

This is all in the wrong thread, but there's little chance this is the  case.  Sullivan already issued orders denying amici the opportunity to weigh in on the case, repeatedly, notwithstanding the nature of the issues being discuss.  He's literally reversing his prior orders, but not to allow any of those amici that wanted to submit orders on the government overreach present in this case to speak.  Instead, he expressly invited a lawyer who just published an article declaring this to be an abuse by Trump and Barr to submit a brief. 

If he were legitimately looking at a question of law he'd be looking for neutrality.  What he's actually signalling is a desire to invite citizen prosecutors to take over the lawful function of the executive branch.  Effectively, he's seeking to appoint his own "special prosecutor."  This is a huge change from the established precedents and procedures in the circuit.  The speculation of course is that he's struggling to find a way to move forward with the conviction to force a pardon.  That is absolutely inconsistent with the legal role of an Article III court.

Quote
I don't think Barr is "Trump's lapdog" but I would still take measures to make sure what Justice is providing is on the up and up, as their accusations basically claim the Obama Admin politicized things which never should have been, and if they were political under Obama, there is reason to believe they might have remained so under Trump.

The revelation that things were political under Obama literally terminates the legitimacy of the case.

The revealed pattern of facts reveals this case was an abuse from the start.

On the topic of this thread, remember as the left claims this was all "routine" to unmask people that they are in fact being deceitful.  The way this works, means they unmasked Flynn in every single call he made on behalf of the Trump administration.  Given it was his job to speak to hundreds of ambassadors of counties and international organizations prior to the administration taking office and virtually all of those people are routinely monitored as foreign agents, this literally translates into spying on a significant amount of the incoming administration's legal and proper calls with foreign administrations.

There is NO basis for any Obama political appointees to have that information.  It's a stretch for even the FBI, CIA and DOJ to have that kind of information access.  Consider for example that Biden made his request on 1/12.  Whether you think that is suspiciously timed based on the known leaks, you should be able to understand that seeking that information and being granted access to it by a political officer eight days before they leave power is beyond exceptional and something that should have been only done by greatest need.  In Biden's interview he made clear he had no involvement in the investigation, which means this request could only be for an illegitimate political purpose.

Again, don't let them confuse you.  This record shows a clear political abuse of power.  It also shows wide spread fraud - Susan Powell has seven requests, when she would have needed only one, and she testified in Congress that she didn't make such requests.  Again, this shows the dangers of abuse of our spying powers to monitor political enemies. 

For god's sake people wanted to impeach Trump for asking the Urkaine about crimes committed by his opponents, but it's no big deal apparently to illegally spy on the incoming administration and commit leaks that are literal felonies for political purposes, and then to actually try and criminalize being part of that administration.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 02:09:46 PM by Seriati »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2020, 02:44:22 PM »
You saying something is unconstitutional (or illegal) doesn't magically make it so.

Where in the constitution is a judge constrained from inviting amicus curiae?  The specific article and wording will be helpful.

The judge is creating his own prosecution team to continue the effort. I think everyone knows this will be ruled unconstitutional. Surely you know that.

It occurs to me, maybe you guys don't know that. So, let's spell it out.

US v Sineneng-Smith, on a 9-0 Supreme Court vote ruled:

Quote
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” …

Justice Ginsburg’s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit’s conduct as “depart[ing] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and “remand[ed] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel’s “redirection” and “takeover” of the appeal and chastised that “the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

Probably thinking RGB is a Trump lapdog now. So here's another precedent from the DC Court of Appeals, US v Fokker Servs BV:
Quote
As the Court of Appeals explained though, such considerations are outside the judge’s role: “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces … whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.”

So yeah, it's been ruled unconstitutional. Judges do not get to take the role of prosecutor. Judge Sullivan is behaving in a way that is illegal and violates well established judicial precedent.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2020, 02:52:32 PM »
Crunch, wmLambert and perhaps one or two others here won't rest until every Democrat has been arrested, tried and convicted of invidious crimes against Our Fearless Leader, not necessarily in that order.

That's why it's pointless to rebut every one of their ham-handed conspiracy theories and false claims.  I'll save it for something for which a lurker or silent observer might benefit from the correction.  In the meantime, guys, have fun with yourselves!

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2020, 02:57:23 PM »
Crunch, wmLambert and perhaps one or two others here won't rest until every Democrat has been arrested, tried and convicted of invidious crimes against Our Fearless Leader, not necessarily in that order.

That's why it's pointless to rebut every one of their ham-handed conspiracy theories and false claims.  I'll save it for something for which a lurker or silent observer might benefit from the correction.  In the meantime, guys, have fun with yourselves!

LMAO

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2020, 03:12:37 PM »
Quote
There is NO basis for any Obama political appointees to have that information. 

That seems a weird statement, since every single federal judge is essentially a political appointee, as are all senior DOJ officials. Are you suggesting that only the deep state should have access to such information? Or do you perhaps mean that no-one should have that information?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2020, 03:51:24 PM »
Crunch, wmLambert and perhaps one or two others here won't rest until every Democrat has been arrested, tried and convicted of invidious crimes against Our Fearless Leader, not necessarily in that order.

That's why it's pointless to rebut every one of their ham-handed conspiracy theories and false claims.  I'll save it for something for which a lurker or silent observer might benefit from the correction.  In the meantime, guys, have fun with yourselves!

Your false debate fallacies this time are: Syllogistic Errors - Fallacy of Four Terms and also False Synthesis. In other words, The syllogistic error here is two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property. Many Democrats have proved to have lied and made false witness. That is not everyone, and claiming that somebody didn't lie does not exonerate those who have been proven to have lied. We know now both Obama and Biden lied about Flynn and the illicit investigation. My loal Democrat dogcatcher has no impact on their crimes.

The second is assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. Again, notwithstanding that dogcatcher may not be pure as driven snow, his actions do not impinge on Obama nor Biden.

Being "ham-handed" would be you accusing others of what you just did. Schiff is a liar. There is no equivocation in that statement. His only defense if that the rules of the House insulates his lies from being used against him. Our Founders made our Representatives immune from being seized on the way to Congress by local constabulary,  but did not mean to allow them to get away with blatant misbehavior. The House should police its own, but will not. The Democrat Party being in the majority can protect Ilhan Omar from being prosecuted from being indicted for marrying her brother to save his Green Card, but in so doing violates its own responsibility and perverts justice.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2020, 04:04:01 PM »
It occurs to me, maybe you guys don't know that. So, let's spell it out.

US v Sineneng-Smith, on a 9-0 Supreme Court vote ruled:

Quote
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” …

Justice Ginsburg’s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit’s conduct as “depart[ing] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and “remand[ed] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel’s “redirection” and “takeover” of the appeal and chastised that “the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”
That's an interesting misrepresentation of Ginsburg's opinion.  The issue that SCOTUS took in Sineneng-Smith was NOT with the existence of amici, as your source would have it, but with the appelate court basing its decision on arguments not made at trial.  Until those arguments are made, and until the judge rules, we simply won't know whether that will be the case. 

Your second reference also fails, because there is no deferred prosecution agreement here; the decision to prosecute is done.  Flynn pleaded guilty.  What a court's responsibility is in this case is a completely different question in law than are the rules around DPAs. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2020, 04:05:27 PM »
Just say you don't care. It would be a lot easier and a lot more honest.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2020, 09:25:24 PM »
...Flynn pleaded guilty.  What a court's responsibility is in this case is a completely different question in law than are the rules around DPAs.
Flynn rescinded that guilty plea based on coercion.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2020, 08:44:19 AM »
Now lets look at Rule 48 regarding dismissal of charges. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint “with leave of the court.”

What’s that mean?
In 1977, in Rinaldi v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed a district court’s decision to deny a Rule 48(a) motion. In that decision, the SC noteD that the “principal object” of the “leave of court” requirement is to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment. The meaning is to keep prosecutors from filing and dismissing and filing again, over and over. It’s sole purpose is to protect the accused.

Quote
In 2016, the D.C. Circuit reemphasized that a district court reviews a Rule 48(a) motion “primarily” to protect a defendant from dismissals that are part of a scheme of prosecutorial harassment to repeatedly bring and then dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit decision, U.S. v. Fokker Services, concerned whether a district court could properly deny a motion to delay a trial under the Speedy Trial Act’s exception for deferred prosecution agreements between the parties “with the approval of the court” because it concluded that the deferred prosecution agreement at issue was too lenient. The D.C. Circuit interpreted this “approval of the court” language in light of separation of powers principles, avoiding an interpretation that would impinge on the executive’s constitutionally rooted power over criminal charging decisions.

Note that it is the executive that has the power over criminal charging decisions, not the judicial.

Quote
The D.C. Circuit then explicitly rejected the idea that “leave of the court” allows a judge to deny a motion to dismiss based on its belief that the defendant should stand trial or that any remaining charges fail to adequately address the gravity of his alleged conduct.

Once the executive declines to prosecute, that’s it. Case over.

Quote
To deny the government’s current motion, in other words, Sullivan would have to distinguish this case from broad and controlling precedent. Particularly given that the government is seeking to dismiss the charge with prejudice (so that no future Justice Department could refile the case), Sullivan could not reasonably conclude that the dismissal is part of any broad pattern designed to harass the defendant.

By ignoring the law and all precedent, Sullivan is way off the reservation here. Going even further, he appoints his own private prosecution - completely usurping the powers of the executive branch. The guy’s gone rogue.

It will lose on appeal, that’s as certain as it gets in these deals.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2020, 08:50:32 AM »
Given that Judge Emmet Sullivan is now inviting amicus curiae, since he clearly isn't impressed with Trump attorney William Barr's attempt to torpedo a valid prosecution, the bigger issue might be the black eye that Barr and Trump will suffer in their attempt to politicize the Justice Department.

Going back to “valid prosecution“. It was most certainly not a valid prosecution. The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and prosecutors withheld vital facts required by law about the plea deal.

There is very little that was valid about this prosecution.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2020, 09:18:43 AM »
Now, back to the unmasking.

Quote
Somebody also leaked to the media. We should find out who.

That’s the meat of this. Unmasking by itself is not the crime, leaking it to the media is. It’s a felony. The Kislyak call and its contents were leaked by “current and former” members of the Obama administration.

That call took place on Dec 28. There are only 8 people on the list of unmasking requests that targeted Flynn who did it after Dec 28. It’s highly likely that at least one of those 8 leaked to the media.

Every single one of these people should be aggressively investigated, just like Flynn was.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2020, 09:18:24 AM »
Judge Sullivan’s judicial prosecutor, John Gleeson, has ruled on these things before:

Quote
The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote.

“In my view, if the government were now moving to dismiss this case, it would be an abuse of [judicial] discretion to deny that motion,” he said.

Case closed.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2020, 07:08:36 AM »
Judge Sullivan’s judicial prosecutor, John Gleeson, has ruled on these things before:

Quote
The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote.

“In my view, if the government were now moving to dismiss this case, it would be an abuse of [judicial] discretion to deny that motion,” he said.

Case closed.

Not in the way you want.  Do you ever check your facts after finding the little nugget that gives you the tingly feeling?  In that case, the move to dismiss was made in a case where the company being prosecuted (HSBC) had not entered a guilty plea and had not yet been formally convicted.  Those are PRETTY BIG differences.  Gleeson also said in that ruling that the court was not bound to grant the dismissal request if doing so would be "clearly contrary to manifest public interest".  The dismissal request was granted, but HSBC was still required to pay a significant fine.  In other words, they did something wrong and paid a penalty for their actions.  As for Flynn, the case is indeed closed.  He pled guilty and is now awaiting sentencing.

For the record, I would have expected you (and wmLambert) to condemn someone for conspiring with Russia to thwart legitimate US foreign policy and then lying about it to the FBI.  SAD!

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2020, 07:43:44 AM »
smh

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2020, 08:10:07 AM »
smh

Wonderful to see how you try to be fair and open-minded :D.  Why don't you hop over to the coronavirus thread and tell everyone who reported that the NEJoM and JAMA found that hydroxychloriquine is useless that they're also just full of hate.  What have you got to lose?  Your TWS can handle the blowback.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2020, 08:25:33 AM »
smh

Wonderful to see how you try to be fair and open-minded :D.  Why don't you hop over to the coronavirus thread and tell everyone who reported that the NEJoM and JAMA found that hydroxychloriquine is useless that they're also just full of hate.  What have you got to lose?  Your TWS can handle the blowback.

smh

When all you post is logical fallacies and/or falsehoods, that’s all you get.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2020, 08:32:48 AM »
smh

Wonderful to see how you try to be fair and open-minded :D.  Why don't you hop over to the coronavirus thread and tell everyone who reported that the NEJoM and JAMA found that hydroxychloriquine is useless that they're also just full of hate.  What have you got to lose?  Your TWS can handle the blowback.

smh

When all you post is logical fallacies and/or falsehoods, that’s all you get.

You don't even know what a logical fallacy is, do you?  If you do, show me where I made one. 

The very odd thing about you (and at least one other here) is that you actually seem to think when someone offers an opinion that is contrary to your own, that it's a "logical fallacy".  It's as if you were to say "I like superman flavored ice cream," and I say "I don't." Would you respond by leaping out of your chair screaming that what I said is a logical fallacy and I'm full of hate?  It's possible.  At least that's my opinion.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2020, 08:47:54 AM »
smh

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2020, 12:37:53 PM »
...As for Flynn, the case is indeed closed.  He pled guilty and is now awaiting sentencing.

What don't you understand about the proven facts of coercion? The guilty plea was rescinded based on coercion. Therefore, Flynn never pleaded guilty. The Judge should recuse himself immediately and pray the people don't remove him from the bench.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2020, 01:02:52 PM »
...As for Flynn, the case is indeed closed.  He pled guilty and is now awaiting sentencing.

What don't you understand about the proven facts of coercion? The guilty plea was rescinded based on coercion. Therefore, Flynn never pleaded guilty. The Judge should recuse himself immediately and pray the people don't remove him from the bench.

What don't you understand about 2000 former DOJ lawyers demanding Barr resign for trying to subvert the judicial system with this blatant misuse of his authority?  If the judge has anything to worry about it's that someone who thinks like you will try to take it out on him personally.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2020, 01:09:23 PM »
the proven facts of coercion?
I fear that none of these words mean what you think they do - well, maybe with the exception of the word "of".

Quote
The guilty plea was rescinded based on coercion.
Aside from whatever motive Flynn might have for attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, he cannot do so unilaterally. He can request the court to do so, but at this point in time, legally, his guilt is an established fact.

Quote
Therefore, Flynn never pleaded guilty.
Err, no, you don't actually have this power over reality.  Who do you think you are, Doctor Manhattan?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2020, 01:21:27 PM »
Seriati, do you really mean to say that these "revelations" are proven to be true, or are they merely alleged?

Quote
The revelation that things were political under Obama literally terminates the legitimacy of the case.

The revealed pattern of facts reveals this case was an abuse from the start.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2020, 01:30:43 PM »
Seriati, do you really mean to say that these "revelations" are proven to be true, or are they merely alleged?

Quote
The revelation that things were political under Obama literally terminates the legitimacy of the case.

The revealed pattern of facts reveals this case was an abuse from the start.
I'm not sure why that's even relevant, since, according to the current administration, a sitting president can order any investigation, and for whatever reason, they want.  They can access any confidential information they want, and they can tell the FBI exactly who they can and cannot investigate.  Much of this is imaginary BS, of course, but it is imaginary BS that certain people have accepted as reality when being claimed by the current president.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2020, 01:42:33 PM »
For the record, I would have expected you (and wmLambert) to condemn someone for conspiring with Russia to thwart legitimate US foreign policy and then lying about it to the FBI.  SAD!

Wow, that's a serious charge is there actually someone that did that?

Or are you just passing a lie about what occurred in the Flynn call? 

By the way, since you staked out this position, I want to be very clear that you agree that if Trump were to lose the election, Trump will still set the "legitimate" US policy  during the transition.  Even if he, as Obama did, is deliberately acting to undermine Biden's foreign policy goals.  And that it would be perfectly fine for Trump officials to spy on the Biden team and charge them with I presume violations of the Logan act if they seek in anyway to undermine that legitimate foreign policy - including by telling allies to just wait for Biden to be sworn in.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2020, 01:44:34 PM »
Seriati, do you really mean to say that these "revelations" are proven to be true, or are they merely alleged?

Quote
The revelation that things were political under Obama literally terminates the legitimacy of the case.

The revealed pattern of facts reveals this case was an abuse from the start.

Yep at this point this is just fact.  Comey's FBI with at best a wink and a nudge from the Obama Whitehouse acted abusively and outside the legitimate authority of the FBI.  I'm running out of patience for apologists for facists.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2020, 01:49:16 PM »
What don't you understand about 2000 former DOJ lawyers demanding Barr resign for trying to subvert the judicial system with this blatant misuse of his authority?

And four out of five dentists asked recommend Crest.  Big whoop.  2000 former DOJ lawyers - who were primary connected by their affiliation with and support for the Obama administration - issued a politically motivated letter.

I'm more concerned that we had 2000 people previously in the DOJ who want to remove an AG that is revealing open corruption in the DOJ and the FBI.  I'd suggest that everyone of their records be looked at to see if they engaged in abuse of discretion, as they clearly have no respect for the legal and constitutional constraints that apply in the exercise of the policing power.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2020, 03:03:16 PM »
Not to mention that over 4000 scientists whose first names were "Steve/Stephen" signed a petition asserting that climate change is real.

Does however many of them worked in the Obama Administration (far from all) mean that by definition they are partisan and signing the letter for partisan reasons?

Quote
Most of the signers are former career lawyers from both Republican and Democratic administrations, though many former political appointees are included. The highest-ranking to sign so far is Stuart Gerson, who served briefly as acting attorney general at the start of the Clinton administration after leading the Justice Department Civil Division in the first Bush administration.

Is Gerson Democrat-partisan or Republican-partisan?   Only a committed partisan can say with confidence.

Quote
I'm more concerned that we had 2000 people previously in the DOJ who want to remove an AG that is revealing open corruption in the DOJ and the FBI.

Wouldn't that be alleged corruption?  Are there corrupt officials in the DOJ today that were hired or appointed by Trump who should be investigated?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2020, 03:05:56 PM »
the proven facts of coercion?
I fear that none of these words mean what you think they do - well, maybe with the exception of the word "of".

Quote
The guilty plea was rescinded based on coercion.
Aside from whatever motive Flynn might have for attempting to withdraw his guilty plea, he cannot do so unilaterally. He can request the court to do so, but at this point in time, legally, his guilt is an established fact.

Quote
Therefore, Flynn never pleaded guilty.
Err, no, you don't actually have this power over reality.  Who do you think you are, Doctor Manhattan?

Err, no, you don't actually have this power over reality

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2020, 03:21:58 PM »
The basic facts:
  • There was no legitimate basis for an investigation of Flynn.
  • Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was not only legal but was proper in his role as part of the transition
  • The FBI originally did not believe Flynn was lying.
  • The original 302 from Flynn's interview has been "lost". The only one available is one that has been rewritten by Strzok and his lover, Lisa Page (in direct violation of FBI procedure)
  • Flynn's alleged "lie" was not material to the case and therefore not illegal
  • Flynn's original lawyers appear to have had a conflict of interest with regards to the FARA filing part of Flynn's plea and, thus, an incentive to get Flynn to plead guilty
  • Flynn's new lawyers have found that the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence, specifically, that they already knew all about the call.
  • Flynn's new lawyers have discovered that the prosecution illegally withheld pertinent information regarding the plea deal. Specifically, the FBI threatened to go after Flynn's children and the rest of his family.
  • As a result of what his lawyers discovered, Flynn changed his plea. This is legal and done all the time, especially in cases where the investigator and prosecution have engaged in rampant misconduct - as they did in this case
  • The law is clear, the decision to prosecute rests solely with the executive branch. Multiple Supreme Court rulings have affirmed this law and it is unconstitutional for a judge to pursue his own prosecution. Even the "judicial prosecutor" appointed has affirmed this.

Those are the facts of what happened to Flynn. I think you all know these are the facts but some of you will want your own "facts" and want to throw out the law and all legal precedent because, you know, orange man bad.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2020, 03:25:22 PM »
And if you think the Obama administration didn't do this all the time, think again:
Quote
President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department regularly surveilled retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s financial records and transactions beginning in December 2015 and well into 2017, before, during and after when he served at the White House as President Donald Trump’s National Security Director, a former senior Treasury Department official, and veteran of the intelligence community, told the Star Newspapers.

“I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation, because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct” she said. “You never want to draw attention to something if there is not anything there.”

The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general’s financial records were accessed. “I never saw what they saw.”

By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

“When I showed it to her, what she said, ‘Oh, sh%t!’ and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff,” the whistleblower said.

“It wasn’t just him,” the whistleblower said. “They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as well.”

Only two names are listed in the whistleblower’s official paperwork, so the others must remain sealed, she said. The second name is Paul J. Manafort Jr., the one-time chairman of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The other names include: Members of Congress, the most senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign and members of Trump’s family, she said.

“Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they were running those names in the unclassified database,” she said.

This ruse was to get around using classified resources to surveil Americans, she said. Once the Treasury personnel had enough information about someone they were targeting from the black box, they would go to the white box for faster and more informed search.

It was routine for these searches that had no criminal nor national security predicate, merely a political predicate, she said.

The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2020, 03:43:12 PM »
The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.

Worse than Reagan (iran/contra)? Worse than Nixon (watergate)? Worse than Johnson (gulf of tonkin)? Worse than Jackson (trail of tears)? Worse than Adams (Alien and Sedition Act)? Worse than the FBI Hoover years? Those better versed in history could probably list a number of others.

Was there some level of corruption in the Obama admin? Yes. But most corrupt in history, tamp down the hyperbole.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2020, 03:46:02 PM »
Does however many of them worked in the Obama Administration (far from all) mean that by definition they are partisan and signing the letter for partisan reasons?

Course not, lots of DOJ prosecutors have careers that span multiple Presidents.  What determines they are partisan is their actions.  Signing this letter, is a pretty clear sign of either being a Democratic partisan, an incompetent with no understanding of the Constitution, or some of kind of autocratic subversive seeking to undermine the rule of law.

It's not like this is their first letter either.  By my count its at least 4-5, I mean the same group organized the "letter" protesting Whitacker's appointment (which was over the top), the reduction in the Stone sentencing recommendation, which was completely proper and this letter.

It's my actual conclusion that if they signed this letter they should never have been anywhere a prosecutor's office (other than as a defendant) because they are expressing that its more important to criticize those rooting out blatant abuse and corruption than to stop the corruption itself.

Quote
Quote
I'm more concerned that we had 2000 people previously in the DOJ who want to remove an AG that is revealing open corruption in the DOJ and the FBI.

Wouldn't that be alleged corruption?  Are there corrupt officials in the DOJ today that were hired or appointed by Trump who should be investigated?

I'm not a reporter.  This is corruption.

I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.  You seem not to understand how federal hiring works if you think Trump has a direct role in it.  But how about this, you go find the person  the DNC side that the DOJ has targetted under Trump and show that there's no basis (other than corruption) for it.  Can't do it.

Nope, even if you could you wouldn't.  You'd rather excuse corruption than admit it occurs on your own side.  For goods sake you all were apoplectic during the Ukrainian impeachment farse about it being an abuse of power without any tie to Trump, and here?  Actual evidence all over the place of abuse of power and interference in the government and crickets.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2020, 04:36:46 PM »
Quote
What determines they are partisan is their actions.  Signing this letter, is a pretty clear sign of either being a Democratic partisan, an incompetent with no understanding of the Constitution, or some of kind of autocratic subversive seeking to undermine the rule of law.

Funny how you don't stop for a second to consider that this is the judgment of seasoned professionals who were appointed by Presidents from both Parties based on their own assessments of what they see?  I can't think of a more partisan judgment than the one you are making.

Quote
You'd rather excuse corruption than admit it occurs on your own side.quote]It's not like this is their first letter either.  By my count its at least 4-5, I mean the same group organized the "letter" protesting Whitacker's appointment (which was over the top), the reduction in the Stone sentencing recommendation, which was completely proper and this letter.

An impartial observer might consider that this is the continuation of a pattern of partisan coopting of what is supposed to be an objective and impartial component of government.  But not to some on the right, who scream in pain as if they were being burned with a hot torch every time anyone shines a light on what their fearless leader has turned what used to be government into.

Quote
It's my actual conclusion that if they signed this letter they should never have been anywhere a prosecutor's office (other than as a defendant) because they are expressing that its more important to criticize those rooting out blatant abuse and corruption than to stop the corruption itself.

You call it a "conclusion" but it's nothing more than a consequence of your beliefs.

Quote
I'm not a reporter.  This is corruption.

Neither are you a fair observer, else you would wait for some formal judgment before making your own from the comfort of your armchair.

Quote
I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.  You seem not to understand how federal hiring works if you think Trump has a direct role in it.

This is the amusing part, because you think the Obama Administration somehow managed to do just that :).  My God, you are as hopeless as Crunch and wmLambert, despite your better writing skills.  I again wonder why you don't run for office; you're a born politician, or maybe preacher.

Quote
You'd rather excuse corruption than admit it occurs on your own side.

Do the following as a purely intellectual exercise.  Identify what you think are the most egregious examples of corruption that have been committed so far by Trump and his agents in the Administration.  Then maybe we can talk.  But if all you can do is throw inch-long firecrackers, none of your blustering even registers.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 04:38:50 PM by Kasandra »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2020, 04:59:54 PM »
The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.



Ask yourself why that is. Now, you may start to understand how Trump got elected.  ;)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2020, 05:22:09 PM »
Funny how you don't stop for a second to consider that this is the judgment of seasoned professionals who were appointed by Presidents from both Parties based on their own assessments of what they see?

DOJ employees weren't appointed by a President.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  The DOJ has over 100k employees, do you have any idea how many ex-employees it has?

Fact is, I have it considered it.  We all know the only thing you ever consider is which team its helps and give no weight to any consistent principal. 

I mean here, we're talking about the principal of equal application of justice.  I've given you hundreds of opportunities to lay out actual claims or principals, and you've never done it.  I think it's because you can't, maybe that you don't even know why your team has picked the side it's on.

Quote
I can't think of a more partisan judgment than the one you are making.

Sure you can.  Next time you disagree with someone and can't explain why, there it will be a "more" partisan judgement.

Quote
An impartial observer might consider that this is the continuation of a pattern of partisan coopting of what is supposed to be an objective and impartial component of government.

Really?  An impartial observer would consider terminating a prosecution of a citizen that committed no substantive crime, and really no crime as laid out in the DOJ's filing as "coopting" a part of government?  See I think any reasonable observer, let alone an impartial one, would see the group that began the persecution for nothing but politics rather than the one that it is ending it, whether or not for politics as the one that coopted a part of the government.  It's not like the judge has issued a new order coopting the complete discretion of the executive branch to bring or not bring charges... oh wait.

Quote
But not to some on the right, who scream in pain as if they were being burned with a hot torch every time anyone shines a light on what their fearless leader has turned what used to be government into.

The level of self delusion it takes to write that is astonishing.  I think is just the final proof in the argument I made years ago that the left is not the party of civil liberties.  You clearly have no respect for them, well at least if they apply in favor of the wrong team.

Quote
Quote
It's my actual conclusion that if they signed this letter they should never have been anywhere a prosecutor's office (other than as a defendant) because they are expressing that its more important to criticize those rooting out blatant abuse and corruption than to stop the corruption itself.

You call it a "conclusion" but it's nothing more than a consequence of your beliefs.

Well not exactly.  It's the conclusion of my training and research on this topic and extensive reading on the file in question.  It's just a fact that those who have signed this letter are signalling that they never took their oath of office seriously.

Quote
Quote
I'm not a reporter.  This is corruption.

Neither are you a fair observer, else you would wait for some formal judgment before making your own from the comfort of your armchair.

Lol, you've patronized us for years based on lies, and never once backed off when they were exposed by formal judgment.  Heck, you did it in this thread, we've had multiple investigations including the Mueller report establish that Russian collusion didn't happen.  It was a false narrative and a lie and the proof is more exposed every day.

So from the point of reality, you're not only not a fair observer you're actively spread falsity.

Quote
Quote
I kind of doubt it, but it's possible.  You seem not to understand how federal hiring works if you think Trump has a direct role in it.

This is the amusing part, because you think the Obama Administration somehow managed to do just that :).

Obama was famous in the inner circles for his ability to imbed political officers into staff positions.  But that's not any significant chunk of the rank and file.  No, the rank and file has had a left hiring bias for decades and that's more than enough to generate the kind of persistent bias being exposed here.

Quote
My God, you are as hopeless as Crunch and wmLambert, despite your better writing skills.  I again wonder why you don't run for office; you're a born politician, or maybe preacher.

Lol.  I'm too complicated and direct to be a politician.  There's no tolerance for nuance.

It's way easier to post little fake claims like you keep doing than to actually show the math on why they are fake, misleading or down right lies. 

But let's get real.  You've made a false claims here, cite to some objective evidence not just a poorly considered appeal to authority.  Show us the transcript on Flynn's lie, show us the equal treatment that applied to Hillary's aides that were caught in lies and were given immunity deals in exchange for nothing.  Heck, show us the attempts by the Trump admin to bring political prosecutions, or its efforts to spy on US citizens.

Everyone here knows you'd be screaming from the roof if Trump did one tenth of what's been revealed here.

Quote
Quote
You'd rather excuse corruption than admit it occurs on your own side.

Do the following as a purely intellectual exercise.  Identify what you think are the most egregious examples of corruption that have been committed so far by Trump and his agents in the Administration.  Then maybe we can talk.  But if all you can do is throw inch-long firecrackers, none of your blustering even registers.

That's a request that I "negotiate against myself."  I understand when you can't make an argument of your own, having the otherside construct one for you seems appealing.  But how about instead you show the support for you arguments.  After all as fair observer you must have "[waited] for some formal judgment before making your own," so how about you share that with the class.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2020, 05:23:12 PM »
The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.



Ask yourself why that is. Now, you may start to understand how Trump got elected.  ;)

The electoral college combined with a bad democratic candidate.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2020, 06:08:32 PM »
Quote
DOJ employees weren't appointed by a President.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  The DOJ has over 100k employees, do you have any idea how many ex-employees it has?

I get it, you're saying these were ex-janitors and security guards.  Damn, when they turn on you!!! ;)

Quote
I mean here, we're talking about the principal of equal application of justice.  I've given you hundreds of opportunities to lay out actual claims or principals, and you've never done it.  I think it's because you can't, maybe that you don't even know why your team has picked the side it's on.

When it's needed, I do.  But you cite the most partisan and narrow "evidence" that doesn't require it.  As in this case, you dismiss what you don't want to legitimize when it suits you.  Do you want me to go review the academic and professional credentials of all 2000 who signed the letter?  Who do you think would sign it. Don't be a moron.

Quote
Sure you can.  Next time you disagree with someone and can't explain why, there it will be a "more" partisan judgement.

No need, you haven't proven anything, only pretended your opinion is fact by citing or misstating things.  That's why I call you a parlor lawyer.

Quote
Really?  An impartial observer would consider terminating a prosecution of a citizen that committed no substantive crime,

See, here's a good example of why I don't need sources.  The entire prosecution of Flynn stands as counter evidence to your claim. You smugly insist that he "committed no substantive crime", but you have to prove that since he PLED GUILTY to the crime.  You can't, so you bluster and insist that anyone who points that out is the one who is somehow relying on fake information.

Get a life, Seriati.  Seriously, you could do some good in the world if you would get off the propaganda merry-go-round you're on.

Quote
Well not exactly.  It's the conclusion of my training and research on this topic and extensive reading on the file in question.  It's just a fact that those who have signed this letter are signalling that they never took their oath of office seriously.

You really don't see what you did here.  You grant yourself superior judgment and simultaneously dismiss the judgment of people who actually have authority to speak out.  This is why it's so easy to dismiss what you claim and why there's no need to run off and do "research".

Quote
Everyone here knows you'd be screaming from the roof if Trump did one tenth of what's been revealed here.
'

He's done things 100 times worse, which is why his approval rating is so low and why he's the subject of so many investigations.

You're an empty suit.  Give it up.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2020, 06:33:35 PM »
The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.



Ask yourself why that is. Now, you may start to understand how Trump got elected.  ;)

The electoral college combined with a bad democratic candidate.

Right, it's just that kind of lack of understanding that will get Trump reelected. I hope Team Biden shares your lack of understanding.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2020, 07:30:42 PM »
Quote
DOJ employees weren't appointed by a President.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  The DOJ has over 100k employees, do you have any idea how many ex-employees it has?

I get it, you're saying these were ex-janitors and security guards.  Damn, when they turn on you!!! ;)

So you think paralegals, assistant US attorneys and other DOJ employees are janitors and security guards?  Sounds like an admission of ignorance.

Quote
Quote
I've given you hundreds of opportunities to lay out actual claims or principals, and you've never done it.  I think it's because you can't, maybe that you don't even know why your team has picked the side it's on.

When it's needed, I do.  But you cite the most partisan and narrow "evidence" that doesn't require it.

Sounds like an excuse to me.  Fact is it's always something that "doesn't require it" when it relates to something you can't justify.

Quote
As in this case, you dismiss what you don't want to legitimize when it suits you.

I didn't dismiss anything.  I just don't find a letter signed by partisan lawyers to be anything of use when I can review the actual filings.  It's real simple, the filings are clear about why this is an abuse.  There's literally not one piece of evidence establishing the lie in the record, all you have is a confession that by the record actually produced seems to be the result of coercion.  Is that really where the left's civil liberty defense has ended up?

Quote
Do you want me to go review the academic and professional credentials of all 2000 who signed the letter?  Who do you think would sign it. Don't be a moron.

Not sure why you think I'm the moron.  You don't understand that virtually all of the career prosecutors are the DOJ are employees don't you?  There are not 2000 ex-DOJ appointed officials, and even if their were they would in fact be the most political of the bunch.  Knock yourself out if you want to verify them.

Quote
Quote
Really?  An impartial observer would consider terminating a prosecution of a citizen that committed no substantive crime,

See, here's a good example of why I don't need sources.  The entire prosecution of Flynn stands as counter evidence to your claim. You smugly insist that he "committed no substantive crime", but you have to prove that since he PLED GUILTY to the crime.  You can't, so you bluster and insist that anyone who points that out is the one who is somehow relying on fake information.

You do understand that he was not on trial for a substantive crime, don't you?  Literally a process crime.  His conversation with Kislak was not illegal, nor were another of the other conversations he had when as a US citizen he was spied on without probable cause by the FBI.  He was already cleared by the FBI at the time the FBI interviewed him.  You've never seen the transcript of his call, nor any transcript of the discussion with the FBI.  Where exactly do you think there's some evidence  in the record that supports you?

It's not there.  If the DOJ didn't have a confession, this is a case that could never be won.  I have real problem with the FBI extorting someone with threats to get them to confess to a fake charge that never should have been brought, and honestly I can't understand how any American can support this. 

This is why you need sources, and why you have no credibility.  You don't even have basic familiarity with the facts and all you can do is parrot what your betters have fed you as the company line.  And I don't mean betters as an insult, I mean literally they believe they are your betters and that they don't owe you the truth that you should just accept what ever lie they want you to believe, and if you stay ignorant and just repeat what they say back without examination then you are agreeing with their conclusions about who you are. 

Quote
Get a life, Seriati.  Seriously, you could do some good in the world if you would get off the propaganda merry-go-round you're on.

So the guy that never does his research and repeats the conclusions of others on every topic, thinks its the other guy that's spreading propaganda.  Lol.  How about you do some real research, back to primary documents on an issue for a change.

Quote
You really don't see what you did here.  You grant yourself superior judgment and simultaneously dismiss the judgment of people who actually have authority to speak out.  This is why it's so easy to dismiss what you claim and why there's no need to run off and do "research".

Or I recognize that there are 10's of thousands DOJ alumni that didn't sign the letter, and this one was originally circulated through left distribution lists and come to the correct conclusion.  This really isn't an areas where I need the conclusions of others to come to right decision.

I can of take your position as endorsing fascism as well.  You really aren't capable of seeing government agents that abused the authority and trust of their positions in this situation?  Hard to imagine what circumstances would trigger your consciousness when applied to the other side.  We all know anytime the investigation is of a Dem it seems unethical in your mind.

Quote
Quote
Everyone here knows you'd be screaming from the roof if Trump did one tenth of what's been revealed here.
'

He's done things 100 times worse, which is why his approval rating is so low and why he's the subject of so many investigations.

Is it.  So you going to put forward those final judgements you spoke about that show it?  Or heck any actual evidence at all?

For something that is 100 times worse, you seem oddly incapable of detailing what "it" is exactly.

Quote
You're an empty suit.  Give it up.

Yes, that's it, I'm the empty suit after you wrote a thousand words about why you don't have to have any facts on your side.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2020, 09:40:56 PM »
Seriati, too many words.  Sorry, I don't have the patience to parse and pick apart your briefs.  I'll give you that you have the best words, or at least the most words.  But I reject your "evidence" and "conclusions" for begging the questions.  Flynn pled guilty, Barr is trying to undo that and will probably fail. Case closed, move on.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2020, 11:04:26 PM »
Lol.  Yep, too many words - it's never stopped you when you want to rant without facts, only when you'd have to put something down that demonstrates your position.  Like I said, I don't believe you even know the basis for your opinions, other than which team supports them.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2020, 11:52:16 PM »
The Obama administration was very likely the most corrupt in American history.

And yet there haven't been any officials going to prison yet.

Operative part is "yet."

It took over two years for Trump to get clear of what gifts the Obama Admin left him, and this investigation isn't even a year old at this point. The "other challenge" is trying to prove intent as a clear intent demonstration is going to be important in having any chance in getting convictions. Which means they have to be extra-thorough in going over what these people were doing and building a credible case that no other motive/intent for their actions is within the realm of "reasonable doubt" as our justice systems standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

While they probably never expected to have their actions reviewed to this level of detail, they probably tried their utmost to obscure any intent claim that could be made against them in court all the same. So thus we're dealing with a slow moving investigation that is slowly building a case.

It's also weird how you're already concluding "they did nothing wrong" while only a year into the counter-investigation, while you were more than content to wait for 2 years on their own questionable investigation of Trump.

But at this stage I think there now are four things in play with why no formal charges have dropped just yet:
1) Covid19 has had many federal courts shut down, so they're backlogged with higher priority cases for trial.
2) They want more evidence, and Covid19 has likely hampered some of the interviewing/deposition process.
3) Most if not all of the (primary) parties involved are no longer actively involved in such activities at this time as the Trump Admin removed them already.
4) Trump wants them to wait a little longer as it can make for a nice "October surprise" for the Democrats, but depending on factors in play, I'd expect they may be shooting to try to get at least one to trial in time for October just to make the Dems squirm. Rather than simply dropping indictments in October. (And I have doubts about his input in things mattering much to those involved, if its convenient and in line with something they're inclined to do anyway, they'll do it, otherwise, they'll ignore it)

A fifth factor is one of the recently revealed suspects for involvement in all of this is the Presumptive Democratic Nominee for PotUS, and another is a former PotUS, so extra caution is needed in how they proceed with starting to "roll it out" as a lot of very connected people are involved in the affair.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 12:02:15 AM by TheDeamon »