Once again, I’m asking you to explain, in your own words, what the scandal is and what crimes were committed. Instead of doing that you’re asking me questions. That does not persuade me there is any basis for your claim that heads should roll.
That is what I did. #4 above, I state that it has been purported that Comey withheld info from the Flynn defense. Yes, I am asking you if you are ok with that?
You still aren’t explaining anything. You’re making claims and asking me to agree that they’re self-evidently scandalous. Show your work.
Just make sure Cohen would learn a valuable lesson? Had he stayed with Trump without spilling the beans, he could be the secretary of Treasury or even the Attorney General.
I am not an attorney. Other than Business Law at IU, I have never studied law. I am not going to sit here and answer your interrogatory. I have cited several items in which Comey and his minions acted in an inappropriate manner. The idea that Strzok allowed Page to make any edits whatsoever is unacceptable. Strzok editing, to the point of trying not to “re-write” is also not acceptable. As from Real Clear Politics:
That's what I thought. You don't know what you're talking about, but you've read stuff that pissed you off, and now you're making claims you can't support. Yet I'm the blinkered partisan.
I am not informed enough to know. I know you think he did, and I respect that. From my understanding, the call in question to Sergi (whatever his name is) was recorded, and everyone new it was recorded. Flynn knew people were listening. I find it hard to believe that a heavily decorated 3star general would intentionally lie, knowing people already knew the answer, but maybe he did.
Jim, even if we assume Hemingway's reporting is 100% accurate, there's a long way from "Strzok and Page were talking about 302 reports" and "Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration, and heads should roll." You're going from Point A to Point Z and skipping the 24 intervening stopovers.
No, not bamboozled. I am not a grand conspiracy theorist. I just don’t fall for the Obama, Comey, McCabe, Biden are as pure as the driven snow. I offered quotes from experts within the FBI for decades, that came to some of the same questions. I offered quotes from Page, Strzok, and Comey, Rice and Yates that were either taken from email, text, or given as answers to a line of questioning. Are identical quotes from The Hill or RCP different from the Post or Times? does it matter where I receive quotes, and determine my own thoughts on them? Do they take on a different meaning? Why are you and Rock not answering the questions that I have offered to you?
I believe they had already gotten that from Apple. I think Goat is right, they're looking for communication with the brother in law or whoever it was.
I think this is a lot of repeated talking points from very very biased news sources.
No, you haven't offered any of that. You've offered Mark Hemingway's article, which as far as I can tell, is the only actual journalism out there that says any of this at all, and his reporting doesn't prove any sort of conspiracy. Other sites - non-journalistic sites - have taken his reporting and claimed it clearly shows a conspiracy. It clearly does not.
This conversation isn't about the basis for the Flynn investigation. It's about whether or not you can provide any justification whatsoever for your original claims that there is some obvious scandal on the part of the Obama administration here that the rest of us should clearly see. We don't see it, and you continue to fail to provide any evidence whatsoever that might correct our error.
Wait, Hemmingway? Mollie Hemmingway? From The Federalist? Jim's argument derives from a crank website? Jim reads and takes seriously a crank website? Bloody hell.
Mark, her husband. Published on RealClear. So a biased website, to be sure, but not "crank."
Okay, well I don't just dismiss Real Clear, but Mollie Hemingway is a kook, so by the transitive principle I'm pretty skeptical of her husband, no matter where he's published. I'm still at bloody hell.
And lo - we haveth our sacrificial lamb to take heat off of DoJ.
I don't even know how to respond to this news. It's like reading that Liver Cancer stabbed Herpes in the back.
And, importantly, it must be stressed that this article - the only actual journalism I could find that remotely even begins to hint at what Jim says is obvious - doesn't actually say what he wants it to say. Other websites - genuinely "crank" websites - take his article, connect it with dozens of other unrelated dots, and say, "See? Clear as day!"
Yes. This is why I want him to explain in his own words what the scandal/crime actually is. It’s “obvious” to people when they read the sources that fill their heads with rot, but when they can’t arrange the nouns and verbs it all falls apart. Or at least everyone else can see it’s fallen apart.
We're not even asking for a convincing argument at this point. We just want to hear what the accusation actually is.
Maybe you find Pulitzer winning journalist Glenn Greenwald a kook, or crank too, I don’t know. He clearly plays to both sides of the aisle. Although he describes the Democratic narrative of the Russian scandal as “unhinged”, he is also openly critical of many of Trumps policies. Another words, I don’t think he squarely sits on one side of the aisle.
Greenwald's problem here is the same as yours. He jumps from "Some people appear to have acted badly and given Flynn a raw deal" to this:
Couple of questions: just out of curiosity, do you generally hold Greenwald to a high standard, or is he a crankDid you watch the embedded video? It is long, about 1:45 in length, but he goes into much more detail than the written article. I know it would be a commitment, but I think it would answer several of your questions.
I can't help but see you evaded the issue, and I don't see how a Glenn Greenwald video would answer questions about what you believe. Unless you just accept what he says without any question. I very much doubt you're that kind of man.
Did you watch the video?
A few things, again:
Thanks for a respected reply. You would know far more about Flynn and his history than me. Hero or not, it is hard for me to believe that Flynn wasn’t mistreated. Hero or not, he still has dedicated his life to the US military. As you say, time will tell.
It is definitely possible that Flynn was mistreated, at least from a prosecutorial perspective. But I think if you understand his checkered history and factor in the raw intel surrounding Russian meddling at the time of these incidents, you can understand why law enforcement was highly interested and suspicious in him.
One more question. You say he ran his mouth as DIA. I assume you are speaking of the disagreements he and Obama had wrt the Drone program. How did you feel about the drone program?
A couple of things.
Flynn publicly criticized the Obama administration for the broad brush of being “soft on terror - specifically Islamic terror.” And for “underrepresenting the threat of AQ remaining in the region.” As an active duty military officer - that simply cannot be done. McChrystal - a man I highly respect - was caught in the rolling stone article doing that and he was finished. Both of them have since spoken out over how much of a joke Trump is and became the target of a trump tirade - a tirade to which Flynn offered no response. McChrystal and McRaven are surely conservative classic republicans and they can not tolerate Trump’s approach or morals. Flynn - in his quest for power - has shown he’ll lash himself to a charlatan like Trump and even violate rules by contacting enemies of our government and freedom and siding with them.
Yes, I would. And it was. And that investigation was concluded, with everyone in agreement that it should be concluded, until somebody came up with Plan B...let's get Flynn to lie. (Once again, some conjecture there, but certainly plenty of smoking guns pointing that direction).
