Jump to content

So was Mueller’s office and the FBI dirty?


Bormio

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, concha said:

Imagine what's running through the mind of an official in the world's premer law enforcement agency when he is actually wondering if the point of the effort being discussed is NOT to get to the truth but rather to elicit or manufacture a lie becasue someone has been targeted?

concha's pathetic attempt at an edit is predictably pathetic.

He's such a hack that he didn't even bother to read one more bullet-point.

Untitled.png.eabcc245b071e1f989d25972c7345848.png.4aa0ded4dc5f57abd6e872fd2c0d0567.png

They knew the facts before the meeting. "Get him to lie" is the same procedure as getting him to confess. They present him with evidence of wrongdoing and he either confesses or lies.

This is some of the most disingenuous stuff I've seen around here and that's saying a lot given how much concha has lied and been dishonest. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slotback Right said:

Three straight posts by Guru on the same subject. Somebody is trying very hard to convince himself that what he posted isn't a big steaming crock of shit.

Keep trying to put lipstick on that pig, Guru.

gshat.png.242cdbd9a8983ffe704f6dd2d6f9a002.pnglittlefoot tossing turds again

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2020 at 2:45 PM, 15yds4gibberish said:

Well, at least we have something of a point of agreement.  I don't feel like synthesizing the issue for you anymore than I already have just so you can can play your weak word dissembling games, which is cool because you find my synthesis too 'subjective' anyway.  So we both agree I don't need to be the one doing all the work here. 

You can read for yourself Mike Flynn's own sworn testimony about exactly what lies Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to.  Here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.16.0_1.pdf

Now you know.

And yes, I am aware, and have read, the subsequent filings.

So since you read it....and subsequent filings...then you know that he was not charged with perjury

but simply lying to 'investigators'...who (thru subsequent filings) apparently were trying to trip him up in a lie....

Just curious if you understand the difference... I think most people are under the impression he lied to the court which would be incorrect,

as apparently he never did....

As an aside...(not that I necessarily agree with either) would you say the dismissal was more or less worse than when the Big O and Holdy did it?

 

Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” 

Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder.  Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]

obho-96c6f0985fe97549e2fd8d6e97903ff8b3b

 
 
🤔
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2020 at 4:20 PM, Troll said:

So since you read it....and subsequent filings...then you know that he was not charged with perjury

but simply lying to 'investigators'...who (thru subsequent filings) apparently were trying to trip him up in a lie....

Just curious if you understand the difference... I think most people are under the impression he lied to the court which would be incorrect,

as apparently he never did....

As an aside...(not that I necessarily agree with either) would you say the dismissal was more or less worse than when the Big O and Holdy did it?

 

Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” 

Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder.  Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]

obho-96c6f0985fe97549e2fd8d6e97903ff8b3b

 
 
🤔

Most corrupt President in our nation's history. 

 

#hypocrisy

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Guru said:

There's a transcript of the call.

Just another in a long line of completely made-up "bombshells" by Breitbart, etc.

And how is that some retort ?

THAT WOULD BE PERJURY UNDER TESTIMONY....

(not simply restating something incorrectly, to investigators trying to trip you up...)

 

Whether you believe his testimony or not....

 

PS:  nice toss tho...

gshat.png.242cdbd9a8983ffe704f6dd2d6f9a002.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Troll said:

And how is that some retort ?

If Vindman lied about something material that's in the transcript that would be easy to find.

It's been 10 months since the Ukraine call and right-wing media has been feverishly combing through documents in order to manufacture "bombshells" and they have absolutely nothing on this guy.

When Breitbart is your source, just like when the Washington Examiner is the only news outlet covering something, it's a farce.

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Guru said:

If Vindman lied about something material that's in the transcript that would be easy to find.

Maybe that's why it was reported....

25 minutes ago, The Guru said:

It's been 10 months since the Ukraine call and right-wing media has been feverishly combing through documents in order to manufacture "bombshells" and they have absolutely nothing on this guy.

Where you been, "the media" has moved on....

...to a few "other things" that apparently seem a little more 'important' right now...

25 minutes ago, The Guru said:

When Breitbart is your source, just like when the Washington Examiner is the only news outlet covering something, it's a farce.

Didn't know you were such a proponent of "fake news"....

 

PS: another nice turd...

gshat.png.242cdbd9a8983ffe704f6dd2d6f9a002.png

but they are not even landing close to being a retort.....

do you even know what direction you are tossing in ?

 

👉THAT WOULD BE PERJURY UNDER TESTIMONY....

(not simply restating something incorrectly, to investigators trying to trip you up...)👈

 

Again....

(whether he lied or not)...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Troll said:

Maybe that's why it was reported....

It wasn't reported.

The link is from Breitbart and is clearly a fishing expedition. But I doubt you even read it.

Vindman wrote his summary based on the talking points that were disseminated prior to the meeting. But Trump didn't stick to the talking points (crazy, huh?) and so Breitbart is claiming that "Vindman admitted to lying in his summary" even though he did no such thing.

This has nothing to do with anything.

So right-wing media doing their job, again.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Troll said:

Where you been, "the media" has moved on....

...to a few "other things" that apparently seem a little more 'important' right now...

The media moved on well before the COVID-19 outbreak because there was nothing to report regarding Vindman.

The fact that this is being posted on Breitbart now is a clear sign, again, that right-wing media creates narratives. They don't report stories.

They are desperate to change the subject right now and fake scandals and fake bombshells are catnip to right-wing loons.

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Guru said:

They are I'm desperate to change the subject  make stupid excuses for my boy right now and fake scandals and fake bombshells are catnip to right-wing loons it's got absolutely nothing to do with the comparison of the infractions.

BTW: FIFY

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...