Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,682
Do you just come here to post without even catching up on the thread first?
Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Do you just come here to post without even catching up on the thread first?
That would imply reading anything other than what Fox News tells him to. I think we can all agree that it's not the case.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I see the corrupt administration has dropped charges. So partisan, so corrupt.
It's news that surprises no one, that Trumps choice of lickspittle has decided to drop charges on someone who was one of Trumps friends
Unfortunately apparently as the charges were filed, a plea enteresed etc the Judge has to agree to drop the case as it's already at the sentencing stage...
Now AFAIK the Judge isn't one of Trumps unqualified never actually worked in a court room before choices, so is likely to go ahead with the sentencing.
Unfortunately apparently as the charges were filed, a plea enteresed etc the Judge has to agree to drop the case as it's already at the sentencing stage...
Now AFAIK the Judge isn't one of Trumps unqualified never actually worked in a court room before choices, so is likely to go ahead with the sentencing.
Why can't Mmj or Tango comment on the more relatable things like when Donald Trump reacts like a turd when a nurse describes her experience.
We can go back and forth on all the stuff regarding trumps cronies but it would be nice to see a response to his more simple human interactions.
He's a total ******* right?
We can go back and forth on all the stuff regarding trumps cronies but it would be nice to see a response to his more simple human interactions.
He's a total ******* right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
If that does occur no doubt Trumpy will sign a pardon. If he has to though it won't look so good.
Unfortunately it makes zero difference how it looks. People who voted for him once are gonna vote for him again because they refuse to see what is in front of their face.
So is this another Barr lead operation of the "refined" justice department to favour Trump's interest. Couldn't remember if it was this case or Stone's where the entire prosecution team all withdrew from the case with no explanation?
I still don't know what your end game is here. Can you explain?
We still wait for the day when you somehow manage to crawl out of your rabbit hole.
Quite entertaining but also sad that you choose to don a tinfoil hat.
Amazing how all the experts in here that believed that Trump conspired with Russia all this time (and still probably do), and anyone who thought otherwise is a conspiracy theorist, STILL have the nerve to come and post thinking they know everything. Anyway..
They dropped the case on a guy that shouldn't have been investigated in the first place, the FBI originally cleared him and closed the investigation, but later reopened it later when Strzok said the 7th floor wanted it reopened.
Obama's DOJ/FBI invented a lie by changing the 302 transcripts of Flynn's meeting with them. They needed Flynn alone so they could make up the 302 report later, so no one could back up what he really said. Strzok/Page are now revealed to have been tampering with Pientka's 302 from the Flynn interview
They then threatened Flynn that they'd destroy his son with decades in jail if the Flynn confess to what they claimed he did. So to protect his son's life from being ruined too, he went along with it until the whole scam started to fall apart then he changed his plea
The prosecutor Van Grack and Mueller's team hid brady material from Flynn
Barr's special DOJ investigator that was investigating the case found that they did hide this material and turned it over to Flynn's lawyer
I'd put good money on Flynn knew he was being trapped, plead guilty to a crime that he knew he did not commit and let the whole counter operation play out to trap them all
Last edited:
That'll be that then.
They won't, the OMB syndrome runs too deep.
It is fun watching though, keep up the good work tang0
Tango have you actually got any contest for your claims and links?
As opposed to a link to Brietbart or Faux news or whatever Q site you've been spending your time on tonight?
I'm not saying you've got a bad record of posting nonsense that is at best incomplete, i'd say it was a terrible record for posting stuff out of context and from sites that have at best highly dubious credibility, and often seemingly misunderstanding what has been said in your links and linked documents.
It's not uncommon (especially in the US) for investigators to take short notes when asking questions, then write up a more full version later as you don't need to write down everything said verbatim for field interviews, and if you've got two or more people asking the questions and taking notes they'll often differ simply because each party might consider something different to be important (or one will be taking notes whilst the other talks/shows stuff). IIRC even for taped interviews they don't necessarily include every um and arr in the the transcripts the law enforcement use internally or for the prosecution IIRC they tend to write what is relevant themselves, whilst full transcription is done professionally and entered into the case files (as it's a very specific skill and it's stupid to waste hours of a skilled investigators time doing what a specialist can do in in a fraction of the time).
Also "going back in tonight to do it" - what? finish typing them up? I mean that's so suspicious that upon being told you might need to have your notes finished in a proper format, you might, well aim to go in and finish them? (my god we need to lock these FBI people up now! they're obviously conspiring to have their work done in time! the horror, the professional competency, the deep stoat conspiracy!)
"I'll polish it up this weekend" - wow that's incriminating, I mean no one ever goes over documents that they might have to submit to a court (or even just into a permanent record) to make sure they've covered all the legal details and are as presentable as possible, no one ever does that. Well except pretty much every law enforcement and legal professional in the world who values their job as there are certain formats that you normally have to present things in, so you might write it out then finalise it for the specific formatting required (and if you're a sensible lawyer or work with lawyers a lot you try to make sure every thing is done 100% correctly on the final form).
You're (as usual) latching on to what I believe are often referred to as "nothing burgers".
I've been seeing a number of lawyers, including ex DA's and ADA's in the US point out that the reasons the DOJ have thrown together to drop the case against Flynn are almost all things that have been argued FOR by the DOJ in the past when the defence has tried to use them, some of them going up to the supreme court, and in cases where the defendant was far more vulnerable to things like being intimidated by the prosecution (things like people who couldn't afford their own lawyers, let alone very good, or at least very expensive ones).
I've had to write up a few things i knew were going to be read by professionals in the past and go on a permanent record, I certainly spent time going over them to make sure they were as polished as i could get them, even for more serious forum posts I'll often read them through a few times and edit them if I think it's worth while (which is extremely rare when I talk to Trump supporters as i know it's usually like talking to a brick wall).
As opposed to a link to Brietbart or Faux news or whatever Q site you've been spending your time on tonight?
I'm not saying you've got a bad record of posting nonsense that is at best incomplete, i'd say it was a terrible record for posting stuff out of context and from sites that have at best highly dubious credibility, and often seemingly misunderstanding what has been said in your links and linked documents.
It's not uncommon (especially in the US) for investigators to take short notes when asking questions, then write up a more full version later as you don't need to write down everything said verbatim for field interviews, and if you've got two or more people asking the questions and taking notes they'll often differ simply because each party might consider something different to be important (or one will be taking notes whilst the other talks/shows stuff). IIRC even for taped interviews they don't necessarily include every um and arr in the the transcripts the law enforcement use internally or for the prosecution IIRC they tend to write what is relevant themselves, whilst full transcription is done professionally and entered into the case files (as it's a very specific skill and it's stupid to waste hours of a skilled investigators time doing what a specialist can do in in a fraction of the time).
Also "going back in tonight to do it" - what? finish typing them up? I mean that's so suspicious that upon being told you might need to have your notes finished in a proper format, you might, well aim to go in and finish them? (my god we need to lock these FBI people up now! they're obviously conspiring to have their work done in time! the horror, the professional competency, the deep stoat conspiracy!)
"I'll polish it up this weekend" - wow that's incriminating, I mean no one ever goes over documents that they might have to submit to a court (or even just into a permanent record) to make sure they've covered all the legal details and are as presentable as possible, no one ever does that. Well except pretty much every law enforcement and legal professional in the world who values their job as there are certain formats that you normally have to present things in, so you might write it out then finalise it for the specific formatting required (and if you're a sensible lawyer or work with lawyers a lot you try to make sure every thing is done 100% correctly on the final form).
You're (as usual) latching on to what I believe are often referred to as "nothing burgers".
I've been seeing a number of lawyers, including ex DA's and ADA's in the US point out that the reasons the DOJ have thrown together to drop the case against Flynn are almost all things that have been argued FOR by the DOJ in the past when the defence has tried to use them, some of them going up to the supreme court, and in cases where the defendant was far more vulnerable to things like being intimidated by the prosecution (things like people who couldn't afford their own lawyers, let alone very good, or at least very expensive ones).
I've had to write up a few things i knew were going to be read by professionals in the past and go on a permanent record, I certainly spent time going over them to make sure they were as polished as i could get them, even for more serious forum posts I'll often read them through a few times and edit them if I think it's worth while (which is extremely rare when I talk to Trump supporters as i know it's usually like talking to a brick wall).
I see you still haven't learned what Flynn was convicted of, I'll say it again but it wasn't because of Russia. And no the whole thing wasn't set up, Flynn literally admitted to making false statements, that's a crime and it's what he was convicted of.
Not really surprising to see a justice department prosecutor standing down when a Trump appointed AG decides to drop a case again a former Trump appointed national security advisor is it, what's more surprising is how you're not taking umbrage over such a move as i thought Trump was elected to drain the swamp.
Aren't you annoyed that someone who admitted to a crime can have the case dropped years later by a politically appointed AG, isn't that the very epitome of cronyism that you elected Trump to sort out?
Even though I'm not expecting a sensible answer I've got one question: Do you know what Flynn was convicted of?
And supporters of Trump will crow that a pardon means he's innocent.
Last edited:
Trump supporters conveniently forget that he made the claim that he is going to drain the swamp .
There really is no point at all trying to explain to them exactly why Flynn was convicted.
It says something that Hillary was spot on when she called them a “basket case of deplorables” which may or may not have caused her to lose to Trump of all people.
Trump supporters have a knack of scraping the bottom of the barrel, not surprising when Trump himself does it constantly. So the bar isn’t very high.
.There really is no point at all trying to explain to them exactly why Flynn was convicted.
It says something that Hillary was spot on when she called them a “basket case of deplorables” which may or may not have caused her to lose to Trump of all people.
Trump supporters have a knack of scraping the bottom of the barrel, not surprising when Trump himself does it constantly. So the bar isn’t very high.
- Status