Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

a reply to: dawnstar

No more than it did when Ted Kennedy did this:

"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

I imagine that would depend on just what they were talking about??
I most certainly would hope that something like this:
www.nytimes.com...

would break some law somewhere???

If the actions and outcome could be verified then yes you have a valid legal case.

If it cant be validated you dont have anything but speculation.

ETA - another example is in the post above this one. That one comes close to violating 18 USC 2385. As a matter of fact quite a few people on the left have advocated positions that also violate that statute.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: aethertek
Lets see Manafort, Gates & now Flynn with more indictments on the way, LOL I wonder what that "Nothing Burger" is tasting like this morning for the acolytes.

K~

Well -

There are no charges dealing with the made up statute of "russian collusion".

Manafort and the other guy were charged with crimes that occurred from like 2004 to like 2014. None of which has anything to do with Trump.

Flynns charge is lying to the FBI about meeting with the Russian ambassador and what they discussed.

So you may want to check the facts before trying to throw some shade.

Usually OP would had mentioned what you point out.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Poppycock. To all of that. It's a litany of conspiracy theories.

a reply to: face23785

What about obstruction of justice???

a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for that information. It looks like the USA has a long history of interacting with Russia.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Poppycock. To all of that. It's a litany of conspiracy theories.

Not really.. Once again stop ignoring / dismissing facts that dont support your narrative.

The credibility of the FBI ended in Bush's second term and was completely destroyed under Obama's 2 terms.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

What about obstruction of justice???

Who obstructed justice?

and if you say Trump then you have a problem.

Terminating my Chief of Police did not obstruct any of the investigations that were underway while he was chief. Comey was not a field agent actively involved in the investigation. Even Dep Dir McCabe stated to Congress Comey's termination had absolutely no impact on investigations, including the ones involving TRump or Russia.

Further, since you seem unaware, the President is the Chief Law Enforcement officer for the federal government. As such he can legally end investigations in addition to prosecutorial discretion on not filing charges. He can also direct his AG to open investigations.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

What about obstruction of justice???

What Justice was obstructed? Mueller seems to be having his way, unhindered.

And here i thought the week end was going to be boring, also why is trump so quiet on this?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
And here i thought the week end was going to be boring, also why is trump so quiet on this?

Because it is a non issue where charges occurred for 2 incidents that occurred in 2016 before Trump was elected.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I thought we'd know he was upset because he'd go into a rabid tweetstorm?

Which is it?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

What about obstruction of justice???

getting rid of the director dint stop anything. it was not meant to. he was also not in the investigatio team.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
And here i thought the week end was going to be boring, also why is trump so quiet on this?

Because it is a non issue where charges occurred for 2 incidents that occurred in 2016 before Trump was elected.

Trump tweets about everything, i find is silence odd.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How can you take a person who lied to the FBI..who lied to the vice president of the United States, and give him any credibility going forward?

Is Bob Mueller so desperate for Success at something, that he's willing to put his morals and personal character on the back burner?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I thought we'd know he was upset because he'd go into a rabid tweetstorm?

Which is it?

He likes to tweet about yuge things.

You know, it really is a shame we'll never see Trump in an orange jumpsuit.




But that's just because he'd blend in with the fabric......*ba-dum-ts*

lol

originally posted by: carewemust
What Justice was obstructed? Mueller seems to be having his way, unhindered.

attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime even if justice is eventually served.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for that information. It looks like the USA has a long history of interacting with Russia.

Interaction is one thing, colluding with Russia, to influence American elections is Treason.

That's what we're looking at. Deal with it!!

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

He does. So if he's not tweeting about it ... it must not mean much?