Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Not a matter of like or dislike for Trump we're well beyond that point for many. That was freshman year stuff minus a record and frankly all politicians and their manipulations concern me. Unfortunately I think of the presidency nearly everyday. It has no context in that scribble and it was universally known Russia interfered in the election what do I expect a sitting Administration and justice officials to do other than investigate and follow information. Flynn ultimately at the end of the day is where he's at due to his inability to tell the truth to numerous Administration officials and that's not just concerning FBI interviews and pleading guilty but lying about discussing sanctions with the Russian Ambassador on the very day they were dealt in the first place. I know you won't believe this but I'm no fan of Obama but I was in favor of a thorough investigation and as investigations go they grow many tentacles as information is gained but no I do not believe his, Obama, actions were 'treasonous'. Likewise I'm completely satisfied that my President is not an acting Russian asset and fully respect the findings. I think this is a fishing expedition of political rivals, part payback and part distraction from our current situation, and give it another 4-8 years and I'm sure we'll find dirt and more napkin scribbles on the other side of Oval office meetings and we'll all just follow along picking our sides again calling each other traitors and pretend they all collectively have our, the every mans, best interest at heart. Ds or Rs..we never manage to actually talk about the now. It really is odd. We're always playing follow along in this pick-a-party clown show. It's quite the Charlie Foxtrot.
OK Spicoli, I kind of get your take, but only kind of. All I'd ask of you in the case of Russiagate & Flynn is to do as you'd normally do and question authority. The authority in this case would be the previous administration and FBI.
On the notes provided here (thanks to Sidney Powell being one badass attorney and gettign this exculpatory evidence released) James Comey, yes Mr Boy Scout himself said of the Flynn-Kislyak calls "appear legit" and despite that you have Biden say "Logan Act" and Obama say "have the right people on it".
Now then, you've also got Comey admitting he sent in FBI to interview Flynn sans representation because "I could get away with it" (Comey's own fucking words). Meanwhile, just to hold a mirror up and see how both sides were treated because we're aiming for 100% complete neutrality in how the FBI treats D or R, when Hillary Clinton was interviewed she was represented by her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills who doubled as an attorney for her despite also being a big part of the corruption. Imagine if you will that you and Master committed a crime, but you've got plausible deniability so long as your stories match up, would it be easier for you to match up your stories if you were in on the same interview? OK and once THAT point and also the point that HRC was ALLOWED legal representation and Flynn was not have been conceded now we can get onto Flynn's "guilty plea". What if I was to ask you very specific questions about your email/phone interactions with various people and expected you to recite them verbatim? Think you'd be able to do that? Now imagine I've got the transcripts of those emails/phone calls in my hand while I'm interviewing you....would you feel confident of your ability to escape that situation without being accused of "lying" or "misleading" the FBI? As an added bonus imagine that on top of that "perjury trap" the FBI decides "Hey what if we have a similar chat with your son about this whole deal? Same terms and all? But if you plead guilty, if you 'fall on your sword' we'll leave your son out of it, what do you say?".
So you've got General Flynn, who has an outstanding record of service, and he gets popped for "lying to the FBI" and need I remind you, the FBI said they didn't think he was lying to begin with VS Hillary Clinton who had emails and devices subpoena'd and she set about destroying those subpoena'd items and wiping their hard drives "You mean like with a cloth?".
Compare and contrast, question authority and their political motivations and tell me you're ok with how everything went down. Also remember Trump wanted to look into Burisma and was told "No, you can't do that he's your political rival"....and yet all this bullshit happened to Trump's administration because of Obama's administration and nobody said a Goddamned thing.
You know full well where I stand. All I ask is that you question authority as is your default stance yeah? Does this look right? Does it look like the FBI played it fair and square? If not, what should be done about that?
