Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Right back at cha babe.

That's the difference. I don't care if Trump and Pence go down. That just helps me look at this objectively. You're emotionally invested in this, so you can't look at it objectively. That's leading you to see things that aren't there.

a reply to: darkbake

As far as foreign meddling in elections, we meddle in elections too. And our press certainly goes into other countries and brings back foreign opinion and plays it as propaganda in an attempt to manipulate the voters here as well. "People in European nation X prefer candidate Y ..." We see those stories a lot.

Let's not even mention that it is known that Obama sent teams in to help Netanyahu's opponent during the Israeli election to try to influence the outcome against him. So if we know about that one because it was reported openly, how many do we *not* know about?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Lying to the FBI about meeting / speaking to them is the crime.

Ah, so lets exam human modus-operandi. Why lie to the FBI about meeting the Russian Ambassador? What motivated Flynn to lie and does that have anything to do with the original allegation that Russia interfered in the election?. Hillary made the allegation during the 2nd debate and on Nov 9th the MSM said the Russians are to blame for Hillarys defeat.

So, my question is: how does these actions by Flynn bear on any of the original allegations as above? Did this lying by Flynn lead to Trumps success or does it prove Russia interfered in the election?

The Obama admin allowed him to keep his security clearance and failed to act when Flynn failed to get prior DoD approval to go to Russia on several occasions.

This is an important detail that often gets overlooked. That tells me that it's probably somewhat common for former high ranking officers to do that, it's one of those on the books but often unenforced laws, that only becomes a "big deal" when someone has a political axe to grind. Kinda like Manafort. What he's charged with you could probably charge half the lobbyists in Washington with.

Not that that makes any of it ok. I'm against such shady dealings. But the standards should be applied all the time.

The concept of former people maintaining their security status is best called "institutional memory" and applies to both military and civilian members of the government.

It is done so current individuals can talk to their previous counterparts who, in some cases, knows more about a particular issue than the current person does.

In Flynns case though if he was such a security risk then he should have had his clearance yanked by Obama.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: ausername
He lied to the FBI?

Never lie to the FBI!

Unless you're a high profile liberal or a Clinton, with connections and loyal subjects throughout the various agencies. Then you can get away with anything.

Better yet never talk to the FBI to begin with...That way you can't lie....


Show up to the interview and say "sorry I don't recall that conversations" over and over and over....

What can they really do then? NOTHING!!

They can charge you with making false statements to the FBI:



You really do have to be a Clinton or in their circle.

a reply to: face23785
trump wishing it would wrap up by Christmas doesn't mean it will.

LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP
LOCK EM UP

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

FISA warrants aren't illegally obtained . Nor can they be.
Forget this route. It's a dead end.

You really should stay off the FISA topic. You're woefully uninformed on it and embarrassing yourself. Par for the course though.

Not even close buy by all means, explain it to me.

This should be entertaining.

I actually wasn't talking to you. You seem like you know a lot more about it than silly does.

My apologies then. I thought you were directing that comment at me.

a reply to: darkbake


I disagree as he tried really hard get Flynn off the hook.

also, why hasn't he implemented those sanctions and why hasn't he upped our security with regards to being hacked? he doesn't seem concerned AT ALL about any of that..

and, the "he believes putin believes" crap.

plus, you have the meeting Kushner, manafort et al lied about.. too much, imo, points to trump being involved.

either trump is involved or putin has stuff on him and he's been compromised.

a reply to: face23785

Are you familiar with the phrase , "Whisteling past the bone yard"?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Lying to the FBI about meeting / speaking to them is the crime.

Ah, so lets exam human modus-operandi. Why lie to the FBI about meeting the Russian Ambassador? What motivated Flynn to lie and does that have anything to do with the original allegation that Russia interfered in the election?. Hillary made the allegation during the 2nd debate and on Nov 9th the MSM said the Russians are to blame for Hillarys defeat.

So, my question is: how does these actions by Flynn bear on any of the original allegations as above? Did this lying by Flynn lead to Trumps success or does it prove Russia interfered in the election?

The Obama admin allowed him to keep his security clearance and failed to act when Flynn failed to get prior DoD approval to go to Russia on several occasions.

This is an important detail that often gets overlooked. That tells me that it's probably somewhat common for former high ranking officers to do that, it's one of those on the books but often unenforced laws, that only becomes a "big deal" when someone has a political axe to grind. Kinda like Manafort. What he's charged with you could probably charge half the lobbyists in Washington with.

Not that that makes any of it ok. I'm against such shady dealings. But the standards should be applied all the time.

The concept of former people maintaining their security status is best called "institutional memory" and applies to both military and civilian members of the government.

It is done so current individuals can talk to their previous counterparts who, in some cases, knows more about a particular issue than the current person does.

In Flynns case though if he was such a security risk then he should have had his clearance yanked by Obama.

Sorry I should have been more clear there. I didn't mean him maintaining his clearance. That is certainly common and perfectly legal. I had the option to maintain mine when I got out of the Air Force. I also helps you get jobs that require a clearance without having to go through the re-investigation. I meant his activity in Russia that the Obama admin knew about and didn't do anything about. That probably means it's pretty common and admins on both sides of the aisle usually just look the other way. Or it means Obama is a Russian agent too.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for giving me something to research. This is what I found.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

Here are the details about what Trump's campaign could have done that would have been illegal.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

In addition:

On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor.

Here are some more specifics, including the statutes you asked about.

Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals.

Politico

a reply to: darkbake

As far as that goes, you can say the same with the Fusion GPS dossier and the Clinton campaign. A whole of everything hinges on it and it specifically, and it was generated almost exclusively by foreign nationals and paid for by campaign money.

And there is the suspicion, more than that, that the actual sitting government used it to obtain surveillance warrants from the FISA court to listen in to the opposition campaign.

Wouldn't that be foreign nationals swaying the apparatus of the entire US government to their favor through one dossier and campaign funds?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Lying to the FBI about meeting / speaking to them is the crime.

Ah, so lets exam human modus-operandi. Why lie to the FBI about meeting the Russian Ambassador? What motivated Flynn to lie and does that have anything to do with the original allegation that Russia interfered in the election?. Hillary made the allegation during the 2nd debate and on Nov 9th the MSM said the Russians are to blame for Hillarys defeat.

So, my question is: how does these actions by Flynn bear on any of the original allegations as above? Did this lying by Flynn lead to Trumps success or does it prove Russia interfered in the election?

The Obama admin allowed him to keep his security clearance and failed to act when Flynn failed to get prior DoD approval to go to Russia on several occasions.

This is an important detail that often gets overlooked. That tells me that it's probably somewhat common for former high ranking officers to do that, it's one of those on the books but often unenforced laws, that only becomes a "big deal" when someone has a political axe to grind. Kinda like Manafort. What he's charged with you could probably charge half the lobbyists in Washington with.

Not that that makes any of it ok. I'm against such shady dealings. But the standards should be applied all the time.

The concept of former people maintaining their security status is best called "institutional memory" and applies to both military and civilian members of the government.

It is done so current individuals can talk to their previous counterparts who, in some cases, knows more about a particular issue than the current person does.

In Flynns case though if he was such a security risk then he should have had his clearance yanked by Obama.

Sorry I should have been more clear there. I didn't mean him maintaining his clearance. That is certainly common and perfectly legal. I had the option to maintain mine when I got out of the Air Force. I also helps you get jobs that require a clearance without having to go through the re-investigation. I meant his activity in Russia that the Obama admin knew about and didn't do anything about. That probably means it's pretty common and admins on both sides of the aisle usually just look the other way. Or it means Obama is a Russian agent too.

Since you have direct knowledge a question -
Do members of the military require both, DoD approval AND admin approval; to give a speech in a country like Russia or just DoD notification and approval?

a reply to: face23785

Ok donald. Lol

a reply to: ketsuko

Hillary Clinton did not pay Russia for information, she paid a private firm for information. This is not illegal.

originally posted by: TheOneElectric
Individuals aren't granted plea deals in complex criminal investigations dealing with high level white collar and political crimes involving multiple parties unless they are able to provide significant information regarding larger fish.

This is not always true--you are looking at this through the lenses of hopeful glasses, it seems.

More often than not, plea deals for relatively mundane crimes like this get approved in order to not bog down the legal system with a trial and sentencing. I would argue that this is the case, here, because there are probably a lot of pending indictments coming that are more important to focus prosecutorial energy on.

a reply to: darkbake

Any election "fixing" would have had to happen in at least 2 big States like Florida and Ohio.

And as it turned out, Trump only needed one of 3 from Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

a reply to: darkbake

So does that means that the dossier obtained by the DNC and Hillary can be considered as "dirt" obtained through a foreign agent?

a reply to: Xcathdra

If he plays ball.

a reply to: darkbake

It depends on what was known. Don't you think? The information she was paying for was obtained entirely through foreign agents, many of them Russian. Do you think the Russians were unaware of what was going on?