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

[Alpo]

stacking the deck......

'Over 10,000 texts' between ex-Mueller team officials found, after discovery of anti-Trump messages | Fox News

It’s unclear whether a significant number of the 10,000 texts have anything to do with Trump or the probe itself.

We'll see, won't we? I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Alpo]

......Hitlery sold all the uranium to the Russians so they had to partner with them....

Perhaps someone could explain this to you speaking in Republican.

 

[ghitch75]

Perhaps someone could explain this to you speaking in Republican.

remember clinton deal????

here you go...

https://www.investors.com/politics/...nvestigate-clinton-uranium-deal-ibdtipp-poll/

 

[ghitch75]

something for the tree?????

Merry Resistmas? A Hillary Clinton Tree Topper Is Now on Sale | Fox News Insider

 

[actaeon277]

something for the tree?????

Merry Resistmas? A Hillary Clinton Tree Topper Is Now on Sale | Fox News Insider

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ary-clinton-christmas-tree-top-available.html

 

[ghitch75]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ary-clinton-christmas-tree-top-available.html

sorry didn't see it....

 

[SheepDog4Life]

We'll see, won't we? I wouldn't hold your breath.

The interesting thing is, that Strozk, as one of the FBI agents interviewing Flynn, did not believe that he lied or was intentionally trying to deceive and, instead, was being cooperatove. Remember that Flynn's deposition was voluntary and there was no evidence of a crime in the transcripts of the telephone calls. None.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok & Robert Mueller Investigation | National Review

It's also worth noting, that while Commey was still in charge, there was no intention of charging Flynn with lying. 'Member this:

Flynn changed story to FBI, no charges expected - CNNPolitics

Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember.

Which strongly implies that the first question asked was whether Flynn and the ambassador discussed the Obama sanctions. Note that in the plea agreement document, when it mentions any detail, says the Flynn said he didn't recall. In such cases, to prove lying, there will be contemporaneous accounts that he did recall, usually to someone else, but conveniently "forgot" during FBI questioning (see Martha Stewart about that one).

IMO, the Flynn charges are Mueller grasping at straws to show something, anything, to justify this investigation. It's all pretext, investigate Trump and associates to see what you find, and cause as much political damage as possible while doing so, no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of a crime necessary to start such an investigation.

 

[actaeon277]

sorry didn't see it....

I was just pointing it out.
Not trying to induce sorrow.
Her face alone does enough of that.

 

[Fargo]

The interesting thing is, that Strozk, as one of the FBI agents interviewing Flynn, did not believe that he lied or was intentionally trying to deceive and, instead, was being cooperatove. Remember that Flynn's deposition was voluntary and there was no evidence of a crime in the transcripts of the telephone calls. None.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok & Robert Mueller Investigation | National Review

It's also worth noting, that while Commey was still in charge, there was no intention of charging Flynn with lying. 'Member this:

Flynn changed story to FBI, no charges expected - CNNPolitics



Which strongly implies that the first question asked was whether Flynn and the ambassador discussed the Obama sanctions. Note that in the plea agreement document, when it mentions any detail, says the Flynn said he didn't recall. In such cases, to prove lying, there will be contemporaneous accounts that he did recall, usually to someone else, but conveniently "forgot" during FBI questioning (see Martha Stewart about that one).

IMO, the Flynn charges are Mueller grasping at straws to show something, anything, to justify this investigation. It's all pretext, investigate Trump and associates to see what you find, and cause as much political damage as possible while doing so, no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of a crime necessary to start such an investigation.

That Flynn waived grand jury and signed a plea pre-charging means he got immunity or something else in return. You don't just dump every constitutional right and safeguard you have for grins.

My my guess is that the lying charge was just a handy low level felony he could easily make allocution on. What he got in return and promised them remains to be seen.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That Flynn waived grand jury and signed a plea pre-charging means he got immunity or something else in return. You don't just dump every constitutional right and safeguard you have for grins.

My my guess is that the lying charge was just a handy low level felony he could easily make allocution on. What he got in return and promised them remains to be seen.

Read what former US Attorneys and AUSAs have written on this. If you are looking to prove a conspiracy, you charge the cooperating witness with that conspiracy, and only lessen the charges/penalties AFTER his co-conspirators have been convicted and sentenced. He gives you what you want FIRST, and his "deal" comes LAST. It keeps his "feet to the fire". There are no big charges against Flynn, no charges of even a hint of an investigated, underlying crime.

And, if Flynn is your "star witness", you've publicly denounced him as a LIAR. A jury will tend to believe you, that he's a liar, that is...

This is a whimper, not a bang.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

SCOTUS Case: Colorado cake baker

At the library yesterday, walking to the information desk, a guy "fast-walked" there, beating me. He looked like he was about to have a heart attack (or a world record dump, the look is similar).

"What is the number of Masterpiece Bakery?", he demanded. I knew what he was talking about, the librarian did not. "Excuse me, what?" "They are the bakery in Colorado that discriminates against homosexuals. They won't sell their cakes to them and I'm going to call them!"

I know a little about this, I've read about it, and started to say something, but stopped. I didn't want to destroy the joy of his little social justice vengence party. He didn't seem very rational anyhow.

For those who haven't read in depth, the baker offered to sell the couple ANY cake or baked good in the store, but REFUSED to design a custom cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding (which was going to be in Washington, btw, as at the time, Colorado neither recognized nor permitted same-sex marriage).

So, when you hear this portrayed as "refused to sell" a cake, that is FAKE NEWS. He refused to custom design a cake. Think, a muslim baker refusing to design a first communion cake, replete with crucifixes, and you're in the same ballpark.

 

[Fargo]

Read what former US Attorneys and AUSAs have written on this. If you are looking to prove a conspiracy, you charge the cooperating witness with that conspiracy, and only lessen the charges/penalties AFTER his co-conspirators have been convicted and sentenced. He gives you what you want FIRST, and his "deal" comes LAST. It keeps his "feet to the fire". There are no big charges against Flynn, no charges of even a hint of an investigated, underlying crime.

And, if Flynn is your "star witness", you've publicly denounced him as a LIAR. A jury will tend to believe you, that he's a liar, that is...

This is a whimper, not a bang.

I didn't say they had a conspiracy they could prove, I said they had something hanging over Flynn he didn't want to have drop. You don't plead guilty pre-charging to a weak lying charge unless you are getting something back.

The charge Flynn pled to might not survive grand jury, much less trial. Why do you think he waived grand jury/discovery/suppression/trial/appeal rights on it without a whimper?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I didn't say they had a conspiracy they could prove, I said they had something hanging over Flynn he didn't want to have drop. You don't plead guilty pre-charging to a weak lying charge unless you are getting something back.

The charge Flynn pled to might not survive grand jury, much less trial. Why do you think he waived grand jury/discovery/suppression/trial/appeal rights on it without a whimper?

Years in court and millions in attorney's fees. I think his options were plea to this, or face a whole laundry list of very shakey charges that would nonetheless cost him his net worth, and more, in attorney's fees.

Branding Flynn a liar, IMO, means that whatever case he might help build will never see a jury. Or a court room. Mueller is pursuing political charges now, not criminal, for an impeachment recommendation. Wouldn't want anything, like trying to make a criminal case, to muddy those waters, lol!

 

[Fargo]

Years in court and millions in attorney's fees. I think his options were plea to this, or face a whole laundry list of very shakey charges that would nonetheless cost him his net worth, and more, in attorney's fees.

Branding Flynn a liar, IMO, means that whatever case he might help build will never see a jury. Or a court room. Mueller is pursuing political charges now, not criminal, for an impeachment recommendation. Wouldn't want anything, like trying to make a criminal case, to muddy those waters, lol!

Have you ever considered that there are a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money who would be happy to pay for Mike Flynn's defense? I really doubt that was the shoe he feared dropping.

I also think you overestimate the effect of his conviction for a crime of dishonesty. The Feds make cases regularly off far less credible people. It will matter far more what people have put in writing, if there is a case to be had at all.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if this leverage move on Flynn doesn't pan out for them in anything larger. I can see this going on a lot like the David Wyser/Carl Brizzi fiasco.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Have you ever considered that there are a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money who would be happy to pay for Mike Flynn's defense? I really doubt that was the shoe he feared dropping.

I also think you overestimate the effect of his conviction for a crime of dishonesty. The Feds make cases regularly off far less credible people. It will matter far more what people have put in writing, if there is a case to be had at all.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if this leverage move on Flynn doesn't pan out for them in anything larger. I can see this going on a lot like the David Wyser/Carl Brizzi fiasco.

This is not a "strong" leverage at all over Flynn. From what I've read, if he just plain plead guilty, no deal necessary, the average sentence for his sole crime, with no record, is 6 months probation.

It's not like Mueller can say Flynn's lies derailed their investigation... they had transcripts and a recording, for goodness sake.

This is very weak.

 

[Fargo]

This is not a "strong" leverage at all over Flynn. From what I've read, if he just plain plead guilty, no deal necessary, the average sentence for his sole crime, with no record, is 6 months probation.

It's not like Mueller can say Flynn's lies derailed their investigation... they had transcripts and a recording, for goodness sake.

This is very weak.

I am referring to whatever they used to leverage a decorated general into a rollover felony guilty plea on a facially weak case without even an indictment...

There is something hanging there, some reason Flynn did this. What it is remains to be seen.

If they ever to file anything and want to use him as a witness, his cooperation agreement would then probably have to be disclosed including what he got in return. If not, we may never know.

 

[bwframe]

Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment also.

Hopefully, this current accounting of scumbags like him will give his legacy what it deserves.

Sexual harassment is not necessarily criminal.

It's understood that the goalposts get moved, according to who is harassing. In the 80's there was a huge push to all business leaders over sexual harassment. By everything I was taught, lectured, seminared, Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment. He used his position of authority to achieve sexual favors from subordinates.

 

[Fargo]

Sexual harassment is not necessarily criminal.

It's understood that the goalposts get moved, according to who is harassing. In the 80's there was a huge push to all business leaders over sexual harassment. By everything I was taught, lectured, seminared, Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment. He used his position of authority to achieve sexual favors from subordinates.

It is generally a civil cause of action based on employment law. Sexual harassment can encompass criminal acts, but generally speaking it is a civil remedy.

 

[Hawkeye]

Pictures. We need more Pics. This discussion is getting too serious.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 61526