Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by GatorAlways, Dec 1, 2017.
I think the "arrogance" is obvious in here..............
There will be no justice until Comey and company are in cuffs for using our intelligence agencies to illegally spy on a candidate and his team because they were on the "wrong" side in this election. That crap is even worse than what Nixon pulled.
For a guy who tells us he founded a school and is headed for the C-Suite, you seem to be clueless in a lot of areas. Clinton was required to testify due to a civil lawsuit filed against him. Flynn was interrogated based on what appears to be a bogus claim.
Its sounding like this same FBI Trump hating clown that got kicked off the investigation did the interviewing of Flynn possibly. Talk about bad optics if true.
Why do you think they are starting to pull sh!t out of their asses? As Hannity says.....tick tock......
It ain't fun when the rabbit's got the gun....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: rss/cnn_latest (RSS: CNN - Most Recent) Washington (CNN)A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter. Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the source said. CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia. But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. --------------------------------------------- What a frickin joke. I am starting to think this DOJ IG investigation which should be concluded in a couple of months is going to expose some really damaging stuff about the FBI leadership that leads directly to Comey himself.
Strzok is also the connection to the dossier
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it ?
Wow you actually believe things that he says? Lol.
And now comes that damned liberal Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School, with his opinion on the Flynn matter. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...nd-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying.html Alan Dershowitz: Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge him with lying? Editor's note: this originally appeared in The Hill. The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation. The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong. Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama's unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama's personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle. Despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a "thunderclap," I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East. As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today. Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn't been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude - a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades - it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech. If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran's ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton's peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison. So there was nothing criminal about Flynn's request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials. This is the way The New York Times has put it: "Mr. Flynn's discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump's aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn's plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration." If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime. So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller's criminal investigation if they were not about crimes? The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying. A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied - whether or not to cover up a crime - is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he's made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only "singing for his supper" but that he may be "composing" as well - that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A "bought" witness knows that the "better" his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That's why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can't "buy" a witness; you can only "rent” them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them. So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a "thunderclap," I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so. I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president's exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn. The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers. Alan M. Dershowitz is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of, "Trumped Up! How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy," which is now available. Follow Alan Dershowitz on Twitter: @AlanDersh Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz.
Hannity.....only a little BUT THE FBI informant from 2008 to 2015 under testimony in front of the House committee investigating the real Russian collusion(Uranium one)....Yes....he says the same thing,...tick tock all the way up to Obummer.....
It seems Gregg Jarrett offers a similar opinion. Michael Flynn lied. Not once, but twice. He lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russia. For that, he was fired by President Trump as national security adviser. Flynn also lied to the FBI about the same subject. For that, he was charged and pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to a single count of making false statements. As part of his plea, Flynn agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. This inexorably invites two questions: Will Flynn implicate anyone else in the Trump administration, including the president? And if so, for what crime? There is nothing in Flynn’s plea agreement or “Statement of the Offense” that implicates President Trump in these conversations with Russia during the transition. Some insight is offered in the “Statement of the Offense” that Flynn signed on Friday during his guilty plea. In the statement, Flynn identifies two separate conversations he had with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. According to the statement, one conversation involved Russia’s reaction to a United Nations resolution on Israeli settlements. The other, a week later, dealt with Russia’s response to President Obama’s executive order on Russian sanctions. Each time, one or more “senior officials” on the Trump transition team conferred with Flynn on what information to convey. The only conceivable crime these communications with Russia could constitute falls under the Logan Act. But that antiquated law has no application for several reasons. First, the Logan Act was enacted in 1799. It makes it a felony for a private citizen to interfere in international disputes between the U.S. and foreign governments. But no one has ever been prosecuted under the act, principally because most lawyers, legal scholars and judges agree that it is likely unconstitutional. Since no one has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act, no court has ever ruled on its constitutionality directly. However, courts have commented on the Logan Act from time to time. In 1964, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72) stated that the act was likely unconstitutional because it is vague, overly broad and ambiguous. Numerous scholarly publications have argued that the Logan Act also violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. So its legal efficacy is doubtful. Second, Flynn was not acting as a private citizen, as the law defines it. He was serving in a wholly different capacity – as a government representative of a president about to assume office. Flynn was preparing the incoming administration for the foreign policy challenges that lay ahead and establishing the kind of vital contact that assists a new president in formulating effective relationships and policies. In other words, Flynn was doing his job. He did it in the same manner that other transition officials have in previous administrations. Several months ago I spoke with Professor W. David Clinton, chairman of the Political Science Department at Baylor University, who co-authored the seminal book “Presidential Transitions and American Foreign Policy.” Clinton stated that it is quite normal and routine for incoming transition teams to have lengthy and detailed conversations with foreign government officials about forthcoming changes in policies. Indeed, Clinton said it would be abnormal if this did not happen. “It is common for representatives of other governments to get in touch with the incoming presidential administration to begin informal relationships and address relevant issues,” Clinton said. “It is not unusual. Transitions are fairly long. The incoming administration needs to inform itself of foreign policy. Getting to know people and foreign governments is widely done and beneficial to the U.S.” Finally, it appears that Flynn and the transition team did not “interfere” with a diplomatic dispute, under the meaning of the Logan Act. To the contrary, Flynn sought ways to de-escalate tensions over U.S. sanctions by asking the Russian government to limit its response “in a reciprocal manner.” By doing this, Flynn was acting for the benefit of the U.S. government and in a manner not inconsistent with the Obama administration’s wishes and policy. He can hardly be criticized for it, much less prosecuted. On the other matter, Flynn admits he urged Russia to either delay or veto a United Nations resolution that condemned Israel’s settlements as a “flagrant violation” of international law. This surely came as no surprise to the Russians or the Obama administration, since it conformed with the same public statement President-elect Trump issued that very day Flynn contacted the Russians about the pending vote. Trump tweeted: “The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed.” Thus, there was nothing secret, nefarious or illegal about Flynn’s communications with Moscow. And in the end, it didn’t matter. Russia ignored Flynn’s request and voted in favor of the resolution, which passed with 14 votes. Officially, the U.S. took no position on the resolution. By abstaining, it neither supported the resolution nor opposed it. And since the measure imposed no sanctions, it was nothing more than an idle diplomatic statement. Even if Trump reached out to the Russians in an effort to find common ways to fight the scourge of ISIS in Syria, as ABC is reporting, such actions are entirely commensurate with longstanding U.S. goals in the war on terrorism and in no way impede the policy of the man he was chosen to succeed. Are these, therefore, violations of the Logan Act? Absolutely not. An incoming president has every right to voice his position on matters of foreign policy. There is no evidence that Flynn’s actions interfered with anything that wasn’t already in the interests of the United States or otherwise altered the course of a diplomatic dispute. This is probably why Flynn was not charged under the Logan Act. The U.S. has never criminalized the conduct of foreign policy by incoming presidents. Others have sought to change overseas policy before taking office, sometimes quite openly. Significantly, there is nothing in Flynn’s plea agreement or “Statement of the Offense” that implicates President Trump in these conversations with Russia during the transition. Nor is there any accusation or evidence that Trump or others conspired with Moscow to influence the presidential election during the campaign. This is supposed to be what Special Counsel Mueller is investigating. Yet, he has uncovered only ancillary wrongdoing that is entirely unrelated to so-called “collusion.” Flynn’s guilty plea to a single count of making false statements is the least serious of any the offenses he could have faced. It is likely he will be given probation. Still, it is inexplicable why a distinguished retired general like Michael Flynn would lie to the FBI about something that is not, by itself, a crime. Sometimes, smart people make stupid choices. But it would be a mistake to conclude that Flynn’s commitment to cooperate with the special counsel means that President Trump is in legal jeopardy. The president is certainly not under the Logan Act.
You think there is any chance at all he gets in trouble and fingers Comey with regards to the warrant requests and other stuff?
Sadly, I doubt it... we are over the cliff. Stupid and doomed
Comey is a very arrogant guy who surely knew what was going on but I think he was smart enough to retain plausible deniability as regards the extreme pro-Hillary, anti-Trump bias in the FBI.
Jeff Session may be a nice guy and a real gentleman but, so far, he has been a total dud in terms of dealing with the bias and corruption in the Justice Department he inherited.
You are probably right but its not out of the question I guess. That arrogant a** and his buddies from the Obama administration have sure been tweeting a lot to their friends at these agencies like they might be just a little nervous something could be coming. I also find it unusual the lefty news sources have ran articles recently questioning Mueller's tactics as a prosecutor in the past.
It may depend on who you are and how powerful as to how fair Sessions is.
Why is it that the only time you quote liberals is if they tell you things that you want to be true?
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.