The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[IndyDave1776]

On INGO it does. I'm just following the INGO way. Heck even if acquitted, if that doesn't follow the INGO way, capital punishment is to be demanded.

I assume you refer to the inclination for some license with justice for a five-times deported illegal alien with multiple felony convictions who killed a citizen and walked? Not only should he be executed, but also those who allowed him to be available to commit the crime, including the sanctuary city morons who established and enforced the ordinances protecting him,

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It's my understanding that Flynn did not tell the truth to the FBI. That's the charge. The charge isn't collusion. It's lying to the FBI. He copped to it. I don't know what the source of controversy should be about that.

That's why it's odd, to me, that there are no quotes of the question asked and the answer given as I have seen in many, many indictments.

The FBI had the recording of the conversion. So, did they ask him if he asked the Ambassador to refrain from retaliating? If they did, and he said no, that's a flat-out lie. If they asked "Did you discuss the sanctions against Russia with the ambassador", then answering "no" is not a lie as it appears he specifically told the ambassador that they COULD NOT DISCUSS THE SANCTIONS.

Is saying no, we cannot discuss the sanctions actually discussing the sanctions?

Like I said... sketchy and I'm especially suspicious because they did not include what I have usually seen, the questions asked and the answers given, verbatim, as well as the evidence, which in this case would be an at least partial transcript of the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador including what he supposedly lied about.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

On INGO it does. I'm just following the INGO way. Heck even if acquitted, if that doesn't follow the INGO way, capital punishment is to be demanded.

Perhaps I missed it... who was acquitted by a jury that "INGO" demanded capital punishment?

(SD4L betting this gets no answer, at least not a straightforward one )

 

[Fargo]

Perhaps I missed it... who was acquitted by a jury that "INGO" demanded capital punishment?

(SD4L betting this gets no answer, at least not a straightforward one )

The dude who shot Kate Steinle.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's why it's odd, to me, that there are no quotes of the question asked and the answer given as I have seen in many, many indictments.

The FBI had the recording of the conversion. So, did they ask him if he asked the Ambassador to refrain from retaliating? If they did, and he said no, that's a flat-out lie. If they asked "Did you discuss the sanctions against Russia with the ambassador", then answering "no" is not a lie as it appears he specifically told the ambassador that they COULD NOT DISCUSS THE SANCTIONS.

Is saying no, we cannot discuss the sanctions actually discussing the sanctions?

Like I said... sketchy and I'm especially suspicious because they did not include what I have usually seen, the questions asked and the answers given, verbatim, as well as the evidence, which in this case would be an at least partial transcript of the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador including what he supposedly lied about.

So there are some that think it's a possibility that the Russians asked Flynn about sanctions, Flynn said he couldn't talk about sanctions, and when interviewed by the FBI, and asked if he discussed sanctions and he replied "no," and the feds charged him for lying?

O-M-G... no seriously O-M-G...
Even if I hadn't read the charging documents, surely I can't be the only one thinking that such thinking is WAAAAAY beyond the pale.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The president needs to stay off Twitter. He's so dumb he's cooking his own goose. It's like he's asking to be charged with obstruction.

 

[churchmouse]

Not sure exactly why we are discussing politics in the break room.

Hang on to your shorts. Gonna move this.

 

[Route 45]

ABC News suspends Brian Ross over 'serious error' in Trump-Flynn report | Fox News

 

[BugI02]

Trumped up charges....may take on a whole new meaning when the dust settles here.

But, most of us don't like overreaching prosecutors...not because we've ever been criminals, but because of our sense of fairness. But, let me ask you, if some foreign [STRIKE]source[/STRIKE] [bank] is willing to pay you a [STRIKE]large percentage of [/STRIKE] [half] a million dollars [STRIKE]or more[/STRIKE] [to make a speech], is it because of your insight or your connections? I'd say mostly connections in this case, which means [STRIKE]lobbying[/STRIKE] [corruption].

When you register in hindsight, it supports that position, doesn't it?

Paging Bill Clinton lolz

 

[BugI02]

So there are some that think it's a possibility that the Russians asked Flynn about sanctions, Flynn said he couldn't talk about sanctions, and when interviewed by the FBI, and asked if he discussed sanctions and he replied "no," and the feds charged him for lying?

O-M-G... no seriously O-M-G...
Even if I hadn't read the charging documents, surely I can't be the only one thinking that such thinking is WAAAAAY beyond the pale.

I'd take that bet

 

[Route 45]

 

[churchmouse]

Color me surprised.......

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Trumped up charges....may take on a whole new meaning when the dust settles here.

But, most of us don't like overreaching prosecutors...not because we've ever been criminals, but because of our sense of fairness. But, let me ask you, if some foreign source is willing to pay you a large percentage of a million dollars or more, is it because of your insight or your connections? I'd say mostly connections in this case, which means lobbying.

When you register in hindsight, it supports that position, doesn't it?

That's a false premise... the Flynn Group registered with the US government as Lobbyists for Innovo, Ltd in a timely manner. After notified by the government that it considered the lobbying efforts foreign agency, the Flynn Group filed it's FARA registration.

This is not at all uncommon as indicated on the DOJ government website on FARA enforcement, with the quote below.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...2-foreign-agents-registration-act-enforcement

If the Department receives credible information establishing a prima facie registration obligation, where evidence of intent is lacking, the Department usually sends a letter advising the person of the existence of FARA and the possible obligations thereunder. FARA, after all, is a malum prohibitum enactment not well known outside the legal/lobbying community. The letter usually cites or provides the information prompting the inquiry. In the Department's experience, the vast majority of persons approached with an inquiry letter based on public source information respond within a reasonable amount of time and either register or convincingly explain their lack of agency status or the availability of an exemption.

It you are intent on hiding foreign lobbying, you don't file registration papers.

 

[Tombs]

Public service announcement:

Please do impeach Trump, democrats.

Please make him a martyr, crucify the savior of more than half the country. Install Mike Pence (a fundamentalist Christian) as president, I'm sure he aligns more with your values than a man who was once a democrat does.

You'll ensure I never see a democrat controlled senate, house, white house, or judicial branch for the rest of my lifetime.

So once again, please impeach Trump!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Public service announcement:

Please do impeach Trump, democrats.

Please make him a martyr, crucify the savior of more than half the country. Install Mike Pence (a fundamentalist Christian) as president, I'm sure he aligns more with your values than a man who was once a democrat does.

You'll ensure I never see a democrat controlled senate, house, white house, or judicial branch for the rest of my lifetime.

So once again, please impeach Trump!

(P.S. Someone please get the left a psychologist, they are having cognitive difficulties as of late.)

Probably not the best comparison, but ok. I would completely welcome Pence into the WH. I'm just trying to figure out, if it IS proven that Trump committed significant crimes against the nation, working in conjunction with the Russians, why my fellow Americans wouldn't want him impeached? Does political ideology garner more loyalty to rule of law and national sovereignty?

 

[Tombs]

Probably not the best comparison, but ok. I would completely welcome Pence into the WH. I'm just trying to figure out, if it IS proven that Trump committed significant crimes against the nation, working in conjunction with the Russians, why my fellow Americans wouldn't want him impeached? Does political ideology garner more loyalty to rule of law and national sovereignty?

Occam's razor says that's about as likely as hillary not having business dealings with the Russians.

He campaigned on working together with Russia to fight ISIS, to help rebuild relations that had degraded over the ordeal in Syria. I would be shocked and appalled if he hadn't met with and at least talked to them. I'm actually very annoyed that the media has created this witch hunt because it has damaged international relations and made it difficult for our president to work on improving relations.


As far as hypotheticals, I have to ask, functionally if he did nothing to hurt the country and delivered on his campaign promises, how exactly would it make a difference? Is that so much worse than the lunatics in Europe trying to steer our country around, as they did with Obama? Or literally go out campaigning for a candidate, as Germany did with hillary? That is an important aspect to explore, because even in the worst case situation, I'm grasping at straws to find out how it's any worse than what we've dealt with before.

I think we have too many old folks with a poor understanding of the cold war who don't seem to realize times are different.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Occam's razor says that's about as likely as hillary not having business dealings with the Russians.

He campaigned on working together with Russia to fight ISIS, to help rebuild relations that had degraded over the ordeal in Syria. I would be shocked and appalled if he hadn't met with and at least talked to them.


As far as hypotheticals, I have to ask, functionally if he did nothing to hurt the country and delivered on his campaign promises, how exactly would it make a difference? Is that so much worse than the lunatics in Europe trying to steer our country around, as they did with Obama? Or literally go out campaigning for a candidate, as Germany did with hillary? That is an important aspect to explore, because even in the worst case situation, I'm grasping at straws to find out how it's any worse than what we've dealt with before.

Just so I'm clear, do you mean if the president committed crimes "but" they didn't functionally hurt the country?

 

[Tombs]

Just so I'm clear, do you mean if the president committed crimes "but" they didn't functionally hurt the country?

Yes, same as with Nixon.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, so the president makes the bone head move of saying (via twitter) that he fired Mike Flynn because he lied to the Mike Pence and the FBI. Given he did that before he fired Comey, and the fact Comey said that the president asked him to drop the Flynn case, it has a strong implication of obstruction.

Now however, for the first time that I've seen, the WH is saying that the president did not author that tweet, and that his lawyer did. This is how stupid the people in the WH think we are. Who wants to go on record and say they believe it?

 

[Tombs]

Ok, so the president makes the bone head move of saying (via twitter) that he fired Mike Flynn because he lied to the Mike Pence and the FBI. Given he did that before he fired Comey, and the fact Comey said that the president asked him to drop the Flynn case, it has a strong implication of obstruction.

Now however, for the first time that I've seen, the WH is saying that the president did not author that tweet, and that his lawyer did. This is how stupid the people in the WH think we are. Who wants to go on record and say they believe it?

If tweets were to be used in a courtroom, would they require evidence of who authored a tweet or would it be taken at face value?

I think I see where this is going.