Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

nsacpi said:
I agree. All along I've thought Flynn was the linchpin in terms of being able to provide the proof, if anything nefarious happened. Both during the campaign and during the transition. I didn't think he would flip. Him flipping is a very big deal.
Click to expand...

12/1/2017

How right you were
 
nsacpi said:
For those of you who cling to the belief that this is a big nothing burger, I offer the following considerations:

Flynn’s encounters with Kislyak get at central questions about the 2016 Presidential campaign and election: why were Trump and Russia doing one another’s bidding, and was there any sort of quid pro quo between Trump and Russia in the event that he won? Flynn has now committed himself to answering those questions.

Maybe his answers to those questions are exculpatory. Maybe not. I lean toward the latter view, partly because the special prosecutor is unlikely to have accepted Flynn's proffer unless it pointed to malfeasance further up the chain of command.

It is worth noting that it is unclear that a quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russia would constitute a crime. However, even if the quid pro quo was structured in a way so that it was not a crime in a technical legal sense, revelation of a quid pro quo would be politically problematic, to put it mildly.

Finally, it is also worth noting that Rosenstein's instructions to the special prosecutor call for an investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the elections. That is Mueller's primary job. But from a political point of view, two things incidental to that primary purpose have greater importance. One is possible obstruction. The second is possible quid pro quo between Trump and Russia.
Click to expand...

Should we revisit?

Ready to change your opinion?
 
Julio3000 said:
When there is gross malfeasance, negligence, or misconduct that causes actual harm? It's an interesting question, but a purely academic one of you're asking for lay opinions.

For all of your hyperventilation over FBI Supervillain (TM) Peter Strzok, you haven't really explained exactly how his private political opinions compromise the investigation.

I feel like we're talking in circles here. Career public servants are allowed to have political opinions. They generally aren't allowed to take them to work, depending on the kind of work they do. Is this platonic ideal going to be universally upheld? No. Is there any evidence that political bias has affected this investigation in a meaningful way? No.

IMO it's silly to even engage in this discussion with you.
Click to expand...

In response to my question of when the investigation into Russian collusion is compromised.

I guess we know now then.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm impressed by my sagacity
Click to expand...

Flynn’s encounters with Kislyak get at central questions about the 2016 Presidential campaign and election: why were Trump and Russia doing one another’s bidding, and was there any sort of quid pro quo between Trump and Russia in the event that he won? Flynn has now committed himself to answering those questions.
 
Julio3000 said:
You are being influenced by a coordinated campaign to undermine the investigation--an investigation that's headed up by a Republican whose team likely reflects a reasonable sample of the profession.

Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, but he also failed to disclose that he was being paid for services by a cutout for the Turkish government, and he allegedly schemed to kidnap a US resident in exchange for payment from a foreign government. And you're telling me that what stinks is the political affiliation of some of the people investigating him.
Click to expand...

From 12/6/17

Very interesting combination of paragraphs here knowing what we know now.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually this seems more like a premature climax on your part...let's see what Flynn says to the judge and more importantly what the judge say to Misha
Click to expand...

Flynn's legal team has been taking this position for over a year. Where have you been?

Initial investigators stated Flynn didn't lie. It was ok only until the impartial Mueller team got in the case that this fact changed.
 
Julio3000 said:
My reaction, thus far, is to ask how having Peter Strzok in harness has compromised the investigation beyond offering the obvious foothold for complaints of the nature of yours.

That's significant enough for him to get dropped from the investigation, apparently But tell me: what do you think he actually DID? Sprinkle some crack on 'em?
Click to expand...

Effectively, they did sprinkle crack on flynn.
 
thethe said:
Oh I don't think he has much of an impact on the collusion case other than entrapping Flynn. What he really could have and probably did was influence the Clinton email investigstion. Deep down I know you realize that. You're way to intelligent to not even consider it a possibility.
Click to expand...

I'm paranoid!!!
 
thethe said:
Flynn's legal team has been taking this position for over a year. Where have you been?

Initial investigators stated Flynn didn't lie. It was ok only until the impartial Mueller team got in the case that this fact changed.
Click to expand...

what do you expect to happen when Flynn goes before the judge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top