Author Topic: The Great Unmasking  (Read 8031 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #200 on: May 30, 2020, 04:44:32 PM »
So here is the Flynn transcript.  Not seeing anything of concern.  There's more than one link, the last one is the actual calls, the eariier ones are transcribed summaries (which looks like someone was actively listening). 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-flynn-kislyak-transcripts-of-conversations-during-trump-transition

Honestly, it's hard to see any reason this should have been recorded, or failing that that it ever should have been in an "intelligence" report as a cause for concern, or that anyone on earth would have needed to have it unmasked.  There's nothing in here that warrants any cause for concern.

So, as I read the transcript it's clear that Flynn negotiated foreign policy with Moscow while not an officer or representative of the US government, without seeking permission from the current Administration or informing them afterward, and then lied about it afterward to the FBI.  It's hard for me to believe that you are so dismissive of the significance of him doing this.

Wrong. Flynn had every right to contact officials all over the world as the changeover was underway. There can be no negotiations until Trump was sworn in - but there was nothing wrong with introducing himself and letting officials know what to expect. There is nothing to be dismissive about. Nothing he said was wrong (as cited by the FBI before Obama ordered them to activate Hurricane Razor). And he also didn't lie. His guilty plea was rescinded because of coercion.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #201 on: May 30, 2020, 05:03:19 PM »
Quote
Wrong. Flynn had every right to contact officials all over the world as the changeover was underway. There can be no negotiations until Trump was sworn in - but there was nothing wrong with introducing himself and letting officials know what to expect. There is nothing to be dismissive about. Nothing he said was wrong (as cited by the FBI before Obama ordered them to activate Hurricane Razor). And he also didn't lie. His guilty plea was rescinded because of coercion.

Wow.  No point in responding, clearly.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #202 on: May 30, 2020, 07:17:05 PM »
Quote
Wrong. Flynn had every right to contact officials all over the world as the changeover was underway. There can be no negotiations until Trump was sworn in - but there was nothing wrong with introducing himself and letting officials know what to expect. There is nothing to be dismissive about. Nothing he said was wrong (as cited by the FBI before Obama ordered them to activate Hurricane Razor). And he also didn't lie. His guilty plea was rescinded because of coercion.

Wow.  No point in responding, clearly.

Kadandra, consider this: The Obama to Trump Administration turn over is the first time in my memory, and probably the first time in the past 100 years, if not longer, where the lame duck administration has taken a deliberately antagonistic foreign policy approach relative to the incoming administration. The prior precedent on this has been that after the election results are finalized, the incoming Administration starts being brought into the loop on decisions being made because it is the height of asinine to implement a new foreign policy position a matter of weeks before it is going to be undone by the next admin. Best to find a common ground and find one the next admin will support.

That the Obama Admin both decided to ignore any input from the incoming Trump Admin officials -- in mid-late December, so the several day delay in paperwork in the first part of November is N/A, and then decided that they were going claim "national security threats" against the incoming admin is highly unprecedented and taking dirty pool to a whole new level that NOBODY should want to accept as the new business as usual.

Except I guess you're okay with Administrations of rival political parties going "scorched earth" on the incoming Admin if it's your side doing it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #203 on: May 30, 2020, 09:07:10 PM »
...I guess you're okay with Administrations of rival political parties going "scorched earth" on the incoming Admin if it's your side doing it.

The policy was set when Bush 43 beat Gore. The Clinton White House staffers broke all the W's off of all the keyboards, and the Clinton family tried to steal all the furniture. They were caught and the judiciary ruled they had to return all the stuff. They still haven't returned it. That is the mindset that inspired Obama to plan his coup. If nobody even slaps your hand, why bother? The attempted coup requires the perp walk into the prison van.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #204 on: May 30, 2020, 09:24:49 PM »
...I guess you're okay with Administrations of rival political parties going "scorched earth" on the incoming Admin if it's your side doing it.

The policy was set when Bush 43 beat Gore. The Clinton White House staffers broke all the W's off of all the keyboards, and the Clinton family tried to steal all the furniture. They were caught and the judiciary ruled they had to return all the stuff. They still haven't returned it. That is the mindset that inspired Obama to plan his coup. If nobody even slaps your hand, why bother? The attempted coup requires the perp walk into the prison van.

The Clinton Admin kept it "to small petty things" which the "w" keys definitely was, although I think that one is kind of funny.

The furniture theft may not have been deliberate but is an unrelated matter to this.

The Clinton Admin didn't go about implementing foreign policies they knew the Bush Admin was going to roll back while simultaneously having the intelligence services monitoring member's of the Bush transition team for "potential national security violations" in the form of advising foreign countries that the Bush team was going to handle things differently.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #205 on: May 31, 2020, 06:30:07 AM »
Quote
Kadandra, consider this: The Obama to Trump Administration turn over is the first time in my memory, and probably the first time in the past 100 years, if not longer, where the lame duck administration has taken a deliberately antagonistic foreign policy approach relative to the incoming administration. The prior precedent on this has been that after the election results are finalized, the incoming Administration starts being brought into the loop on decisions being made because it is the height of asinine to implement a new foreign policy position a matter of weeks before it is going to be undone by the next admin. Best to find a common ground and find one the next admin will support.

That the Obama Admin both decided to ignore any input from the incoming Trump Admin officials -- in mid-late December, so the several day delay in paperwork in the first part of November is N/A, and then decided that they were going claim "national security threats" against the incoming admin is highly unprecedented and taking dirty pool to a whole new level that NOBODY should want to accept as the new business as usual.

Except I guess you're okay with Administrations of rival political parties going "scorched earth" on the incoming Admin if it's your side doing it.

I disagree with every point you make here, and maybe with every single sentence.  Suffice it to say that I can't fathom how you can compare Obama to Trump and somehow find that Obama is the less inclusive, compromising or collaborative of the two.  Can't. Fathom.  Is this the argument from the right, that Trump is somehow the victim for everything he has screwed up since well before he was even elected until now?  He's still complaining that Obama didn't leave him warehouses full of PPE and a vaccine for the coronavirus.  "I don't take any responsibility at all" for anything.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #206 on: May 31, 2020, 12:38:41 PM »
So, as I read the transcript it's clear that Flynn negotiated foreign policy with Moscow while not an officer or representative of the US government, without seeking permission from the current Administration or informing them afterward, and then lied about it afterward to the FBI.  It's hard for me to believe that you are so dismissive of the significance of him doing this.

So you're going with the Logan Act?  Even though it's never been prosecuted by the DOJ in it's entire history, notwithstanding that it's constantly and openly violated.  Notwithstanding that the 2 times it was proscecuted prior to the formation of the DOJ - on stronger facts - it failed.  Notwithstanding the wide spread (pre-Trump) opinion of the legal community that it was unConstitutional and could never be the basis for an enforcement (an opinion that was clearly reaffirmed by Sally Yates as the Acting AG during the Obama Administration's transition).

Even if you got over all of that, you still have a major problem that Flynn was already part of the incoming administration and entitled to be in contact with foreign parties, including foreign governments, and to convey the incoming administration's positions.  Ergo, the entire premise of the Logan act is inapplicable.

In other words, you tripling down on a complete bogus cause of action.

Again, there is ZERO in those transcripts that should have triggered any intelligence reporting, or any unmasking.  Everything he said in those calls was something he was legally entitled to say.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #207 on: May 31, 2020, 12:51:09 PM »
Quote
So you're going with the Logan Act?

I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea. If I thought he should have been tried for a Logan Act violation I would have said so.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #208 on: May 31, 2020, 01:12:20 PM »
Quote
So you're going with the Logan Act?

I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea. If I thought he should have been tried for a Logan Act violation I would have said so.

In the bolded section, are you speaking for yourself, or detailing the level of seriousness the FBI believed the lie was?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #209 on: May 31, 2020, 01:35:34 PM »
Quote
So you're going with the Logan Act?

I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea. If I thought he should have been tried for a Logan Act violation I would have said so.

In the bolded section, are you speaking for yourself, or detailing the level of seriousness the FBI believed the lie was?

Both.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #210 on: May 31, 2020, 01:47:08 PM »
Quote
So you're going with the Logan Act?

I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea. If I thought he should have been tried for a Logan Act violation I would have said so.

You were responding to the actual transcript.  There's no lie in the transcript.  Do you not remember what was going on, or are you deflecting?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #211 on: May 31, 2020, 01:55:54 PM »
Quote
So you're going with the Logan Act?

I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea. If I thought he should have been tried for a Logan Act violation I would have said so.

In the bolded section, are you speaking for yourself, or detailing the level of seriousness the FBI believed the lie was?

Both.

But the FBI did not agree with that. It was Obama who reopened the attack on Flynn when his FBI agents said there were no lies.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #212 on: May 31, 2020, 02:29:37 PM »
But the FBI did not agree with that. It was Obama who reopened the attack on Flynn when his FBI agents said there were no lies.

Uh, no. Your chronology is off at that point. "The lie" that Flynn pled to happened after the transition, Obama had no means of reopening the attack at that point, he was no longer President.

That isn't to say officials who worked under him didn't decide to follow through on stuff Obama was clearly initiating at the start of January.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #213 on: May 31, 2020, 03:49:40 PM »
Oh, puhlease.  There's no point in discussing this with either of you at this point.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #214 on: May 31, 2020, 04:16:47 PM »
Oh, puhlease.  There's no point in discussing this with either of you at this point.

Except that you are wrong and being a bully: https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/30/breaking-fbi-closed-flynn-case-dubbed-crossfire-razor-in-early-2017-until-strzok-ordered-it-to-stay-open/

Obama had a meeting. At that meeting he had all the swamp monsters - most of whom stayed on during the transition - and he acknowledged the FBI had said Flynn did not lie. It was after that meeting when the CYA memos were written saying Obama wanted everything done "according to the book," and Peter Stzrok reopened the attack on Flynn as Crossfire Razor.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #215 on: May 31, 2020, 04:24:17 PM »
...I'm going with he lied to the FBI about a serious matter, not something that incidental, irrelevant or innocuous.  The lie was serious enough that it justified prosecution, which he short-circuited by his confession and plea.

No. You are not going with that, because the FBI said he didn't lie. He fell on his sword when Obama's minions threatened his family, They had already bankrupted him, and he had to sell his home to pay his legal expenses - to attorneys who had their own agenda and sold him out to avoid their own missteps in Turkey. It was Sidney Powell who picked up his representation and outed the coercion, which had the illegal guilty plea set aside. There is no guilty plea. Period.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #216 on: June 24, 2020, 03:06:35 PM »
Today, The DC Circuit ordered the Flynn charges dismissed.

Quote
These clearly established legal principles and the
Executive’s “long-settled primacy over charging decisions,”
Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 743, foreclose the district court’s
proposed scrutiny of the government’s motion to dismiss the
Flynn prosecution. Before this court, the district judge explains
that he plans to “question the bona fides of the government’s
motion,” Sullivan Response 29 (quotation marks omitted),
“inquire about the government’s motions and representations,”
Sullivan Reply 26, “illuminat[e] the full circumstances
surrounding the proposed dismissal,” id. at 12, and probe
“whether the presumption of regularity for prosecutorial
decisions is overcome” in “the unusual facts of this case,”
Sullivan Response 3. A hearing may sometimes be appropriate
before granting leave of court under Rule 48; however, a
hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the
prosecution’s charging decisions, because “authority over
criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the
Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight
power in—the Judiciary.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741. The
district court’s orders appointing an amicus, see infra 8–10, and
scheduling the proposed hearing therefore constitute clear legal
error.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #217 on: June 24, 2020, 05:55:47 PM »
So it goes. 2-1, guess which 2 were the conservative judges.  The judge who wrote the opinion was appointed by Trump.  This isn't over yet, as Judge Sullivan has the option to appeal to the appeals court en banc or even to the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, conservative justice appears to be dominant in this case, even though reality has a liberal bias.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #218 on: June 24, 2020, 06:09:26 PM »
So it goes. 2-1, guess which 2 were the conservative judges.  The judge who wrote the opinion was appointed by Trump.  This isn't over yet, as Judge Sullivan has the option to appeal to the appeals court en banc or even to the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, conservative justice appears to be dominant in this case, even though reality has a liberal bias.

Funny thing, there actually are a great number of cases where the prosecution has decided to dismiss a cases after a guilty plea has been entered into the record. They're rare, but they're not unheard of. I've seen at least a half-dozen citations of such cases at this point. In every single case, the motion was granted without question, until now.

There are dozens more cases in more "advanced (in the process)" cases where the degree of misconduct already identified in the Flynn case resulted in a dismissal, one of which even came from the Judge who has gone "extra-judicial" on Flynn's case.

I don't think that appeal, should the judge pursue it is going to go well for the Judge's court. If it was somehow reversed on appeal, it'll be on a strict party line. At which point SCotUS will be getting into it, and I have doubts about that one going down on party lines. There probably will be a Liberal justice or two who side against Flynn, but it'd be 6+ for dismissal to 3 or fewer against.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #219 on: June 24, 2020, 06:54:59 PM »
Quote
Funny thing, there actually are a great number of cases where the prosecution has decided to dismiss a cases after a guilty plea has been entered into the record. They're rare, but they're not unheard of.

This is a good example of something for which the name escapes me at the moment.  Call it an inflation or synecdoche where a few things somehow take on the characteristics of and subvert the whole. You managed to do that in two sentences.  Congrats.