Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Judge demands docs/TAPES of Flynn re RUSSIA & Wiki + CONGRESS'L WH intimidat'g calls

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    yawn
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    14,413
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 7,511 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 1,798 Times in 1,605 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    It's called not enough evidence to convict.

    Stuff like "Mueller’s team indicated that Flynn provided “statements made in 2016 by senior campaign officials” that included discussions of the possibility of reaching out to WikiLeaks."

    and

    "Flynn or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation."

    "possibility" and "could've", etc.

    We'll find out soon enough.
    Total bullshit. He had ENOUGH evidence but he thought/thinks he was restrained from, not ALLOWED/PERMITTED/AUTHORIZED to INDICT.

    LEGAL EAGLES and CONSTITUTIONAL scholars say, WHO SAYS?
    WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
    WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
    WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
    WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
    WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
    WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
    WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
    WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Centerleftfl For This Post:

    Cinnabar (05-17-2019)

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    And from POLITICO...

    LEGAL
    Prosecutors: Person 'connected to' Congress tried to influence Flynn's cooperation with Mueller


    By KYLE CHENEY
    05/16/2019 06:14 PM EDT
    Updated 05/16/2019 08:55 PM EDT

    An unidentified person “connected to … Congress” allegedly tried to influence former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s willingness to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to a filing unsealed in federal court Thursday.

    In a newly unredacted filing from prosecutors related to Flynn’s sentencing — originally submitted to a federal judge in December — Mueller’s team revealed that Flynn assisted Mueller’s investigation of efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to thwart Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    “The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation,” according to the newly revealed portion of the filing. “The defendant even provided a voicemail recording of one such communication.”
    was it Nancy?......

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Stretch (05-17-2019)

  7. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    Total bullshit. He had ENOUGH evidence but he thought/thinks he was restrained from, not ALLOWED/PERMITTED/AUTHORIZED to INDICT.

    LEGAL EAGLES and CONSTITUTIONAL scholars say, WHO SAYS?
    Consider decaf..........good night
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    dukkha (05-18-2019)

  9. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,026
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    And yet every AMERICAN can see with their owns eyes case after case after case of OBSTRUCTION, never the less "collusion". The LEGAL ability by the powerful to WEASLE OUT, even or especially at this level is long abd STORIED ib our justice system. Regular people could never weasel out much less in your face criminality because they don't have THOUSAND dollar an hour lawyers to manipulate, drown the courts in paperwork and WAIT OUT common sense justice.

    The HAM SANDWICH ANALOGY is stoooopid on steroids. Ham sandwiches LIKE PRESIDENTS "CAN'T BE INDICTED" or so Mueller contends. This was the CASE to test it but I guess we'll never know.
    You obviously have no experience with grand juries. There is no defense, only prosecutors using the lies of "witnesses" and their own "ideas" rather than physical evidence. In my opinion, grand juries are unconstitutional because they can, and do, indict someone without any physical evidence.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  10. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    14,413
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 7,511 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 1,798 Times in 1,605 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Consider decaf..........good night
    Switching to DECAF sure as hell won't tamp down AMERICAN or IRANIAN anxieties now, will it? At least when I drink 'leaded' I don't cost my country BILLIONS and squander the world's good will.
    WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
    WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
    WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
    WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
    WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
    WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
    WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
    WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same

  11. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    You obviously have no experience with grand juries. There is no defense, only prosecutors using the lies of "witnesses" and their own "ideas" rather than physical evidence. In my opinion, grand juries are unconstitutional because they can, and do, indict someone without any physical evidence.
    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the US Constitution which says this....
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  12. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    30,591
    Thanks
    18,199
    Thanked 15,615 Times in 10,679 Posts
    Groans
    202
    Groaned 617 Times in 606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the US Constitution which says this....
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"
    Perhaps you should read your own post. It refutes THIS:


    .
    Posted by RB 60

    You obviously have no experience with grand juries. There is no defense, only prosecutors using the lies of "witnesses" and their own "ideas" rather than physical evidence. In my opinion, grand juries are unconstitutional because they can, and do, indict someone without any physical evidence.

    In NO WAY.
    TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..


    De Oppresso Liber

  13. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokmaster View Post
    Perhaps you should read your own post. It refutes THIS:


    .


    In NO WAY.

    RB60 wrote....
    You obviously have no experience with grand juries. There is no defense, only prosecutors using the lies of "witnesses" and their own "ideas" rather than physical evidence. In my opinion, grand juries are unconstitutional because they can, and do, indict someone without any physical evidence.
    I posted words from the US Constitution that say this..

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"
    Are you of the opinion that the US Constitution can be unconstitutional?

    My pointing out that grand juries are required in certain cases by the US Constitution would mean their use can't be unconstitutional. It clearly refutes RB60's opinion.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  14. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,026
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the US Constitution which says this....
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"
    I know what it says. Are you saying grand juries don't indict innocent people using lies and discredible testimony?
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  15. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    I know what it says. Are you saying grand juries don't indict innocent people using lies and discredible testimony?
    I am saying the founders felt grand juries were required to put some restrictions on overzealous prosecutions.

    Think for a moment about how the grand jury process works then consider giving the sole power of indictment to the person that presents is working to get a grand jury to indict.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  16. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,026
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    I am saying the founders felt grand juries were required to put some restrictions on overzealous prosecutions.

    Think for a moment about how the grand jury process works then consider giving the sole power of indictment to the person that presents is working to get a grand jury to indict.
    I know how grand juries work...and don't work. Prosecutors can, and do use lies and less than credible witnesses to get indictments. I've seen it happen to a classmate years ago.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    So you would have preferred the prosecutor simply make the indictment on their own without having to present any evidence to a GJ?

    I would guess that if the prosecutor used lies and less than credible witnesses to get the indictment that your classmate was found not guilty very quickly, right?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    The noose tightens around Mullet's neck

    This from 12/13/18...........
    Judge in Flynn case orders Mueller to turn over interview docs after bombshell claim of FBI pressure

    One day after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's legal team made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House, the federal judge overseeing Flynn's criminal case is demanding answers from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government's documents and "memoranda" related to Flynn's questioning. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel's office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fly...ured-by-agents
    What's hilarious is, Centerleft thinks this is a good thing for his side, lol.
    Every life matters

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    Stretch (05-20-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Flynn tapes implicate trump?
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-29-2018, 08:23 PM
  2. Deadline to Turn Over Russia Docs Looms
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-27-2018, 07:04 PM
  3. DOJ Reneges Commitment to Provide Trump Russia Docs to Congress
    By dukkha in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-07-2018, 05:42 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 06:50 PM
  5. Bob Mueller demands access to Trump White House docs
    By floridafan in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2017, 02:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •