Investigating the Investigators or taking down the Deep State | Page 8 | Barking Hard

Investigating the Investigators or taking down the Deep State

Waited decades

In your own words? You linked an article from Fox. You haven't showed one original thought or actual direct research at any point in our discussion.
This subject is so self evident. going beyond would be compendious. a waste of my time.

You haven't showed one original thought.
Sorry but you used the phrase.

Please show just 1 "original thought" you have ever had ? in your lifetime.
How dare you ask for one here. you don't even know me. lol
 
However, I do struggle with the idea of putting our interests ahead of global interests in all cases. Maybe I'm not up to speed on a working definition of Trump's philosophy here (I struggle to ever see him articulate philosophies of any depth as it is). Certainly open to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Well, first, I guess my mention of respectful disagreement is due to me being more than a little gun shy about that at the moment. I was accused of belittling someone recently and that has bothered me a great deal. I certainly don't want even a hint of that in our relationship.

Regarding the above quote, perhaps a word of explanation is in order. In regard to that, I will say that I do not regard Trump as being particularly articulate in enunciating a philosophy. I think he says things crudely. In a way, I find it interesting that I have found myself supporting Trump as I do. I assume you were aware that before the election I self described myself as a never-Trumper. Mad seems fond of mentioning that, by the way.

I was a Rand Paul fan until he was eliminated. I generally gravitate toward men who speak well. I am particularly fond of Alan Dershowitz, for example. Despite his liberal leanings, I generally like Bill Maher and think he is interesting. Trump is generally not my type. I have never understood the visceral hate that some have for him nor the love that others seem to hold. I just kind of like didn't like him.

But after the election, I found myself liking his policies on trade. And from there I saw what he was doing with ISIS and then there was the moment when I came to the realization that MS13 actually represented a significant threat that needed to be addressed.

As for his philosophy, I see it not in words but in terms of specific actions. Take ventilators for example. A month ago, we were building a stockpile of ventilators. We built way more than we actually needed. Maybe it was because we initially thought we needed a lot more than we actually did. As I recall, at one point, Governor Cuomo insisted that he needed 30,000 ventilators and had only received 4000 from Trump. As it turned out, 4000 was more than enough.

But after it was clear that we were building many more than we needed, Trump didn't slow the production. He kept it full steam ahead. Then he started talking about requests from other countries for ventilators and, finally, this month, he has shipped ventilators to a number of countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Russia and the UK. But notice that he didn't do it until it was abundantly clear that our needs had first been fully met. As I see it, he is capable of benevolence and the reason he maintained production of ventilators and didn't slow it was in order to be able to be benevolent. He knew what he was going to do with the excess, but he first made sure it was not at the expense of our own needs.

At least, that is the way I see it.
 
I’m sure you sleep just fine Cliff,
Don’t be so hard on yourself...

Just be assured that I have respect for your point of view as a human being regardless of agreement or disagreement. I am certainly not afraid of disagreement; indeed, I embrace it. I am much more likely to express specific disagreement than agreement. I am neither a disciple of any man nor do I seek disciples. I explain not to convince, but to be understood. I am frustrated when my best explanations are not understood, but being understood is sufficient. I do not need agreement. If it happens, it happens, but I don't need it.
 
Anybody who votes DemoRat now oughta be committed to an insane asylum.. They clearly are the party of filth and evil... Not saying the repubs are perfect... But these assholes ought to be hung without a trial for tearing this country apart... George Soros included.. Hes a pure evil mother fucker...
 
Rod Rosenstein

Basically testified that he is a clueless incompetent.

“I do not consider the investigation to be corrupt, but I understand the president’s frustration given the outcome that there was
no evidence” of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia, Rosenstein said
So just saying I was unknowing collector of pay checks while employed going to be enough to walk away Free ? AYFKM ?
 
Federal appeals court orders Flynn judge to dismiss charges

A federal appeals court handed a major victory to Michael Flynn on Wednesday, ordering a lower court judge to dismiss the felony false-statement charge Flynn pleaded guilty to during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit split 2-1 along ideological lines as it backed Flynn’s unusual bid to strongarm U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan into accepting Attorney General William Barr’s move to pull the plug on the case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/24/dc-circuit-orders-flynn-judge-to-dismiss-charges-337751

But, of course, it isn't over until it is over. The pursuit of Flynn was political from the beginning and some of the same political actors--including Sullivan--are still involved in the play. The failure to reassign the case to another judge is significant. Sullivan will likely appeal and the full appeals court will likely reverse along political lines in a 7-5 decision. Then it is on to the Supreme Court in this nonsense case. To be continued...
 
The plot thickens:

Newly discovered notes purportedly written by former FBI official Peter Strzok indicate that then-FBI Director James Comey appeared to downplay Flynn’s calls during the presidential transition with Russia's ambassador as "legit" during a meeting attended by then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Flynn’s legal team today submitted them as part of his court case, after acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia shared them with Flynn’s attorneys yesterday.

In addition to the handwritten notes, Flynn’s attorneys also submitted a transcript based on the notes which reads as follows:

The notes state: "VP: 'Logan Act,' P: These are unusual times. VP: I’ve been on intel committee for ten years and I never. P: Make sure you look over things and have the right people on it. P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling the transition team? D: Flynn-> Kislyak calls but appear legit."

As noted in the article, the transcript assumes that in Strzok's shorthand, "D" represents Director Comey, "VP" represents Vice President Biden, and "P" represents President Obama.

Other details from the article:

Sherwin told Flynn attorneys Sidney Powell and Jesse Binnall on Tuesday that the notes were found as part of the Justice Department’s review of the Flynn case and that they were "taken by former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok."

"While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5," Sherwin wrote Tuesday.

On Wednesday, after a federal appeals court ordered Flynn’s case be dismissed, Powell filed the notes and claimed they produced "further stunning and exculpatory evidence" that was previously withheld from Flynn.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-comey-obama-biden-flynn-case
 
Big Deal

All this is .......Very Important findings. Historical Big Deal just Terrible

And it would be if it happened to Obama or any other Dem. but Trump ? Who cares
he deserves it. he's hitler after all. at this point we should just be happy they didn't just blow them ALL up when they were in a plane Kremlin Style.


In the real world they are talking about impeaching AG Barr. How Dare him look for the Truth. and find it too. he must go he's a Racist anyway.

on another topic or not
Here's a bit of lost truth about the 1990's get tough on crime bill. Who wanted this Tough on crime bill anyway ? let me remind you.

Black Americans Supported the 1994 Crime Bill, Too
How bad was crime in America when Clinton became president?


When he came to power there was a sense that crime had reached insane levels. People in urban communities were afraid to go out. By this point a lot of middle-class African Americans who were able to leave these neighborhoods had left, so you had a lack of civic organization, the housing stock was miserable, and there was just sort of a lot of despair and fear. And the crack epidemic was coming to a head at that point. You had gang violence over the drug trade. It was just a desperate situation for many urban African Americans.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...94-crime-bill-championed-by-the-clintons.html

The Clintons Aren’t the Only Ones to Blame for the Crime Bill
Black leaders also embraced it.

Justifying the legislation, Clinton remarked, “Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools.” He continued, “Every day, we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder.” Not surprisingly, Democrats rushed to claim credit after its passage. Senate majority leader George Mitchell lauded it as a victory for the party, saying, "This is a Democratic bill. The author of the bill is a Democrat. The principal supporter for this bill is a Democratic president.”
https://www.themarshallproject.org/...n-t-the-only-ones-to-blame-for-the-crime-bill
 
on another topic or not
Here's a bit of lost truth about the 1990's get tough on crime bill. Who wanted this Tough on crime bill anyway ? let me remind you.

Black Americans Supported the 1994 Crime Bill, Too
How bad was crime in America when Clinton became president?

When he came to power there was a sense that crime had reached insane levels. People in urban communities were afraid to go out. By this point a lot of middle-class African Americans who were able to leave these neighborhoods had left, so you had a lack of civic organization, the housing stock was miserable, and there was just sort of a lot of despair and fear. And the crack epidemic was coming to a head at that point. You had gang violence over the drug trade. It was just a desperate situation for many urban African Americans.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-clintons.html

The Clintons Aren’t the Only Ones to Blame for the Crime Bill
Black leaders also embraced it.
Justifying the legislation, Clinton remarked, “Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets and undermined our schools.” He continued, “Every day, we read about somebody else who has literally gotten away with murder.” Not surprisingly, Democrats rushed to claim credit after its passage. Senate majority leader George Mitchell lauded it as a victory for the party, saying, "This is a Democratic bill. The author of the bill is a Democrat. The principal supporter for this bill is a Democratic president.”
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...the-crime-bill

I liked your post for the first part. The second part, quoted above, not so much. Regarding Clinton's crime bill, the main problem was they went overboard on sentencing. Putting more police on the street was effective, but the sentencing guidelines were absurd. And, by the way, this is where I find myself in major disagreement with some of Trump's recent rhetoric. Ten years for defacing a statue? Absurd. A year in prison for burning a flag? Absurd. He is sending the wrong signal. You want to discourage defacing a statue, make the penalty a month in jail but make it certain. Second offense two months. That should be enough to take the fun out if it.

The problem with over sentencing is that, first, you make it more difficulty to get a conviction even in obvious cases. In addition, you encourage prosecutors to go for plea deals which is largely the system we have now. If the penalty for a minor drug offense is thirty years, the chances of getting someone to cop a plea and accept, for example, a ten year sentence in a case that a prosecutor would have hell trying to prove is encouraged.

After a while it becomes a game for prosecutors. They don't even worry about having to prove a case, instead they just force a defendant to plead guilty to a lessor charge and put them away without a trial. Much too often, innocent people plead guilty to a lessor charge like lying to the cops or other such nonsense to escape the risk of many years in prison. It is all just part of the game. Exhibit number one: Michael Flynn.

Like they say, if they can do it to Michael Flynn--and they did--who else do you think they can do it to?
 
A day late here, but hopefully not a dollar short :)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Strzok writes “D: Flynn - Kislyak calls but ‘appear legit’” If Director Comey thought the calls were legit, then on what basis, did STRZOK with the apparent approval of FBI leadership, intervene January 4/2017 to keep the Flynn case open? Text “Hey, don’t close RAZOR” <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CBSNews</a> <a href="https://t.co/jC2YxuMuSs">pic.twitter.com/jC2YxuMuSs</a></p>— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1275848632424714240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Just for reference:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“...by the book...” <a href="https://t.co/OyaSEnJj6M">pic.twitter.com/OyaSEnJj6M</a></p>— Amau Thomas (@AmauThomas) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmauThomas/status/1275846242577395712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
94

I liked your post for the first part. The second part, quoted above, not so much. Regarding Clinton's crime bill, the main problem was they went overboard on sentencing. Putting more police on the street was effective, but the sentencing guidelines were absurd. And, by the way, this is where I find myself in major disagreement with some of Trump's recent rhetoric. Ten years for defacing a statue? Absurd. A year in prison for burning a flag? Absurd. He is sending the wrong signal. You want to discourage defacing a statue, make the penalty a month in jail but make it certain. Second offense two months. That should be enough to take the fun out if it.

The problem with over sentencing is that, first, you make it more difficulty to get a conviction even in obvious cases. In addition, you encourage prosecutors to go for plea deals which is largely the system we have now. If the penalty for a minor drug offense is thirty years, the chances of getting someone to cop a plea and accept, for example, a ten year sentence in a case that a prosecutor would have hell trying to prove is encouraged.

After a while it becomes a game for prosecutors. They don't even worry about having to prove a case, instead they just force a defendant to plead guilty to a lessor charge and put them away without a trial. Much too often, innocent people plead guilty to a lessor charge like lying to the cops or other such nonsense to escape the risk of many years in prison. It is all just part of the game. Exhibit number one: Michael Flynn.

Like they say, if they can do it to Michael Flynn--and they did--who else do you think they can do it to?

I didn't say I favored the 94 crime bill. Just wanted to point out Who did.
because in someways TODAY it's like Trump did it lol

But on the results it worked. deadly crime steadily went down for 2 decades in most areas.

If you recall Cliff, I favor all drugs being legal for adults. that change would allow law enforcement to go after Real crime. and prison reform, where VERY little is spent on lifers and funds go to those getting out for education to jobs. I vision a private & gov programs working together.
 
There is some deep irony in the Flynn case:

The irony is that if Judge Sullivan had simply sentenced Flynn last December, it is highly unlikely that any of the exculpatory evidence that has vindicated Michael Flynn would have seen the light of day. Flynn was prepared to accept sentencing last December until Sullivan's threats convinced him that he should wait. As Jonathan Turley has written in an opinion piece regarding the decision by the appellant court:

The panel was also aware of past concerns raised in the case, including the rather bizarre first sentencing hearing held in December 2018. In that hearing, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason in a case involving comparatively minor charges of false statements to federal investigators. Sullivan dramatically used the flag in the courtroom as a prop and accused Flynn of being "an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out." (He later apologized for his comments.)

The irony, however, is that Sullivan proved the best thing that could have happened to Flynn. After that unnerving exchange, Sullivan asked if Flynn still wanted him to sentence him or wait. He indicated that he might go substantially beyond what Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had demanded. Flynn wisely decided to wait. The resulting delay allowed the damaging evidence from his case to be review and released. Had Sullivan simply sentenced Flynn last December, it would have been much more difficult for Flynn to have raised these issues.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-emmet-sullivans-injustice-column/3250896001/

Actually the chances are even more remote that Turley indicates. Has Sullivan simply sentenced Flynn last December, Flynn would not have obtained new counsel, Sidney Powell, who smelled a rat. And if she had not sought to reverse Flynn's guilty plea, it is highly unlikely that Attorney General Barr would have asked Jeff Jensen, an outside prosecutor from St. Louis, to review the criminal case against Flynn. And without that review, the likelihood that the exculpatory evidence would have been discovered is essentially nil.
 
Update from Catherine Herridge (Sullivan, Flynn, Stone, Barr, Bolton):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iFMjh3XxB7E" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Top Bottom