Was I Watching a Script for Saturday Night Live??

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Tiny

It's a pity the two parties can't come up with presidential candidates who are on top of their games, mentally.

so true.. I never thought of choosing based on the VP candidate, but I think those candidates carry a lot of weight this year. Pence is plenty lucid, but so much so that I know exactly where he sees his vision of America.. which is to say he is a WORSE candidate than Trump.

Biden needs to make a strong choice. we know he is choosing a Woman.. hopefully she won't be as lame as Ferraro or Palin.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

so true.. I never thought of choosing based on the VP candidate, but I think those candidates carry a lot of weight this year. Pence is plenty lucid, but so much so that I know exactly where he sees his vision of America.. which is to say he is a WORSE candidate than Trump.

Biden needs to make a strong choice. we know he is choosing a Woman.. hopefully she won't be as lame as Ferraro or Palin.

I don't think your fears as a social liberal would be realized under a President Pence. I'd far prefer him to Trump. Pence may be an ass kisser, but he's logical, reasonable, and knows how to work with the other side.

[oeb11]

Agreed - i would much rather see pence as POTUS than trump.

really a shame our country cannot nominate better candidates in 2016 or 2020..

BTW - news today is Biden clinched the number of delegates for the nomination .

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Agreed - i would much rather see pence as POTUS than trump.

really a shame our country cannot nominate better candidates in 2016 or 2020..

BTW - news today is Biden clinched the number of delegates for the nomination .

I voted for Kasich in the primary, mainly because I thought he'd run stronger in the general election than Cruz. Nobody likes Cruz, because he looked kind of slimy before he grew the beard (good move Ted), but on economic issues I liked him as well as any of the candidates except for Rand Paul.

Anyway, as far as the Republican Party is concerned, there's nowhere to go but up in 2024. I'm not so sure about the Democrats. The Millenials are dragging the party to the left, and they may end up nominating someone from the mold of Bernie Sanders. Actually Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will turn 35 about a month before the election. Maybe she'll be our first female president.

[oeb11]

AOC elected POTUS - to Implement the Soylent Green New Deal???
Tiny - a nightmare of epic proportions.!


No question though - the Dems are dominated by the radical left and their socialist Agenda.

They will move farther Left as their mediating elderly group of H.... age leaders die off.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yeah, that’s nutty. It’s hard to understand how Lord Trump’s mind works.


Which is why I don't try to understand how his mind works, only the decisions he makes. That's what I judge him on. Imagine if Elizabeth Warren had been the presumptive nominee of the Democrat party and you tried to understand appointing a 9 year old Trans child to advise her on appointing her Secy. of Education. What "understanding" would you attach to that comment?


On a separate note it was interesting to read in the article that 49.6% of blacks are employed right now. I heard the same thing on television and misinterpreted that to mean about half of blacks are unemployed and thought times are very hard. Actually only 51.3% of all Americans of working age are now employed. If we weren’t in a recession it might be 63%. It’s CNN’s way of making something sound worse than it really is.

Which is why I differentiate between lying and interpretation. I think all reasonable people understand the difference between CNN and Fox News. One "interprets" Left and one interprets Right. It's the "glass half full, glass half empty" interpretation and when one understands this, you know what to do with the information.


Facts, should require less interpretation but in the age of Trump, that idea has lost all meaning.


And on the subject of CNN making something sound worse than it really is, this was a doozy.



We recently learned that after a 5 month investigation of Flynn by the FBI, they found no derogatory information and the agents recommended dropping any investigation of Flynn and any connection he may have had in a conspiracy to help Russia interfere in our election, the reason for Crossfire Hurricane.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossf...wittingly%20or

Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2016 and 2017 into links between Trump associates and Russian officials and "whether individuals associated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election"

Did General Flynn interfere in the election? He did not.


But since James Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page were not satisfied with the fact that nothing had been found, they decided to find something other than interference in the election and decided on "interfering with Barack Obama's foreign policy" or Logan Act violation though they couldn't say this out loud because they knew they would be laughed out of a court of law.

The

Logan Act

(1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

The fact is, a newly appointed National Security Advisor to the newly elected President has reached out to foreign counterparts since the beginning of the Republic. So what made General Flynn's call to the Russian Amb. illegal? Well, of course it wasn't and Flynn was never charged with violating the Logan Act.



Our resident "deflector in chief" 9500 told us that Flynn by asking the Russian to hold off on escalating the war of sanctions, was meant to "destabilize" America. How's that for straining credulity?

Definition of credulity



: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence

I haven't seen the proof that Flynn lied to the FBI but I have seen the prof that the FBI lied to the FISA court. Yes, Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI because, according to Flynn and the circumstantial evidence bares this out, he was coerced into admitting he lied to keep his son from being prosecuted for failing to register as an agent of a Foreign Government law.


For over 3 years, CNN 'interpreted" everything they heard from Democrats and Adam Schiff in particular, as truth. Schiff said he had the evidence of conspiracy and CNN and the Democrats believed him. Schiff said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the FISA application process, while Republican Kevin Nunes and Shaun Hannity insisted there was a problem. CNN chose to believe Schiff. Now that the classified information has been released, information we now see should never have been classified in the first place, we see that Schiff didn't just get it wrong, he lied. How do we know this? Because all the interviews that Schiff took which he claimed provided him with indisputable evidence that there was a conspiracy, showed no such evidence. He lied and CNN, to this day, still supports Shiff's "interpretation" with no evidence to support that interpretation.


IMHO, the biggest "bombshell" evidence in all the bombshell evidence, was the hand written note asking the Flynn investigators if they were going to try and get the truth from Flynn or try to get him to lie so that they could prosecute him of get him fired. This was "exculpatory evidence" that the FBI sat on for 3 years. This alone should warren the mistrial of Flynn but unfortunately for Flynn, he got a Judge with a hair up his ass for, yes, you guessed it, Donald Trump.


Interpreting statistics is one thing. Interpreting facts is quite another. Fox News may be guilty of interpreting statistics but CNN is guilty of interpreting things that were not facts, as facts. A much greater journalist sin IMHO.

[oeb11]

XiNN long since went the way of "anti-trumpers" propaganda 24/7 - My personal view is the NYT, wacomPost, XiNn, and MSNBC - and other liberal outlets - were part and parcel participants in the lies of Schiff - full participants - not just passive recipients of Schiff Lies - the LSM participated and likely assisted schiff in his Lies from the house committee. LSM actively supported and partcipated in the scam and Lies.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

We recently learned that after a 5 month investigation of Flynn by the FBI, they found no derogatory information and the agents recommended dropping any investigation of Flynn and any connection he may have had in a conspiracy to help Russia interfere in our election, the reason for Crossfire Hurricane.

I'm a big believer in criminal justice reform and civil liberties and have read a couple of books relevant to both, America Under Arrest and Three Felonies a Day. These were published years ago, before Comey became head of the FBI. One singled out Comey when he was a prosecutor in New York for prosecutorial abuse.

What they did to Flynn unfortunately is standard operating procedure. You entrap someone and then throw the book at him. Sometimes you're trying to make him squeal, but often it's just the system gone crazy. There are so many laws out there that it's almost impossible for someone working in business or probably working in government to avoid violating some statute or regulation from time to time. Hell, it's impossible to know what they all are. Thus the name of one of the books, Three Felonies a Day.

Flynn got fucked. He should never have been prosecuted. I don't think it was necessarily done for political ends though. I'd attribute it more to a fucked up system where the prosecutors and law enforcement have too much power and too little common sense.

[oeb11]

Tiny - +1 - well written.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Tiny - +1 - well written.

unfortunately for those not open minded as tiny, there's ONLY one answer.

guilty!

guilty!!

guilty!!!

[oeb11]

The Rioters/Looters screaming for "Justice" - it is not about Chauvin - it is about being manipulated into violence by radicals on both sides - and encouraged by NYT "Pulitzer Prize" winners who nisist Rioting, butning, and Looting is not "Violence" - unless it happens to her.

What is the goal- as Clyburn said - never let a good crisis pass as an "Opportunity". (paraphrased)

it is armed revolution the radicals are fomenting. successfully - until armed Middle America decides to fight back!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm a big believer in criminal justice reform and civil liberties and have read a couple of books relevant to both, America Under Arrest and Three Felonies a Day. These were published years ago, before Comey became head of the FBI. One singled out Comey when he was a prosecutor in New York for prosecutorial abuse.

What they did to Flynn unfortunately is standard operating procedure. You entrap someone and then throw the book at him. Sometimes you're trying to make him squeal, but often it's just the system gone crazy. There are so many laws out there that it's almost impossible for someone working in business or probably working in government to avoid violating some statute or regulation from time to time. Hell, it's impossible to know what they all are. Thus the name of one of the books, Three Felonies a Day.

Flynn got fucked. He should never have been prosecuted. I don't think it was necessarily done for political ends though. I'd attribute it more to a fucked up system where the prosecutors and law enforcement have too much power and too little common sense.

I don't see how it is possible to come to that conclusion. To say "they have to much power and too little common sense", while true, would be a cop out ( no pun intended ) in this case.


Comey was told in no uncertain terms that Flynn was not a Russian agent but wanted him prosecuted? Why? Because he could, just doesn't seem to answer the question and I think let's him off the hook.


When you combine the e-mails of Strzok and Page. The use of the Steele dossier which Comey had to know was Russian dis-information because he was told so. The changing of the wording in an e-mail between CIA and FBI made it easier to get a FISA warrant. Why if not political?


But most of all, the admission of Comey himself as to why he sent FBI agents into the White House without going through FBI, White House protocols "because I thought it was early enough in the Trump administration that they would be dis-organized enough that I could get away with it and I probably wouldn't have done it to Bush or Obama", I think seals the deal on whether it was politically motivated or not. Not because of a political party per se but because of a difference in political ideology, that of Trump through Mike Flynn compared to Comey.


When one admits they did something to one person that the wouldn't have done to anybody else, is an admission that it was personal.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I don't see how it is possible to come to that conclusion. To say "they have to much power and too little common sense", while true, would be a cop out ( no pun intended ) in this case.


Comey was told in no uncertain terms that Flynn was not a Russian agent but wanted him prosecuted? Why? Because he could, just doesn't seem to answer the question and I think let's him off the hook.


When you combine the e-mails of Strzok and Page. The use of the Steele dossier which Comey had to know was Russian dis-information because he was told so. The changing of the wording in an e-mail between CIA and FBI made it easier to get a FISA warrant. Why if not political?


But most of all, the admission of Comey himself as to why he sent FBI agents into the White House without going through FBI, White House protocols "because I thought it was early enough in the Trump administration that they would be dis-organized enough that I could get away with it and I probably wouldn't have done it to Bush or Obama", I think seals the deal on whether it was politically motivated or not. Not because of a political party per se but because of a difference in political ideology, that of Trump through Mike Flynn compared to Comey.


When one admits they did something to one person that the wouldn't have done to anybody else, is an admission that it was personal.

Undoubtedly there were people like Strzok and Page investigating Trump and associates who had a political bias. I suspect Comey did not, initially at least prior to working for President Trump. In 2016 he said he was a registered Republican most of his adult life.

It's just the way he rolls. He has a history of entrapping people. Here are some passages from an old Wall Street Journal article, when Obama nominated him to become FBI director.

Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse. That goes double with Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around, and who had his own hand in some of the worst prosecutorial excesses of the last decade.

The list includes his overzealous pursuit, as U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, of banker Frank Quattrone amid the post-Enron political frenzy of 2003. Mr. Comey never did indict Mr. Quattrone on banking-related charges, but charged him instead with obstruction of justice and witness tampering based essentially on a single ambiguous email.

Mr. Comey's first trial against Mr. Quattrone ended in a hung jury; he won a conviction on a retrial but that conviction was overturned on appeal in 2006. This May, the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice was launched at the University of Pennsylvania thanks to a $15 million gift from the banker, perhaps with Mr. Comey partly in mind.

There is also Mr. Comey's 2004 role as deputy attorney general in the Aipac case, in which the FBI sought to use bogus "secret" information to entrap two lobbyists for the pro-Israel group and then prosecuted them under the 1917 Espionage Act. The Justice Department dropped that case in 2009 after it fell apart in court—but not before wrecking the lives of the two lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Or the atrocious FBI investigation, harassment and trial-by-media of virologist Steven Jay Hatfill, falsely suspected of being behind the 2001 anthrax mail attacks. Mr. Comey continued to vouchsafe the strength of the case against Dr. Hatfill in internal Administration deliberations long after it had become clear that the FBI had fingered the wrong man. Dr. Hatfill ultimately won a $5.8 million settlement from the Justice Department.

His involvement in the political process, which occurred in 2016 when he came out with announcements that first favored Hillary Clinton and later Donald Trump, also had a precedent. Richard Armitrage gets off scot free, and Scooter Libby is unjustly convicted and spends 30 months in jail, as a result of an investigation that Comey kicked off:

Then there's Mr. Comey's role in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. Mr. Comey first encouraged Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself in naming a special counsel on grounds that the AG could run into a conflict of interest if the investigation implicated Karl Rove.

Whereupon Mr. Comey gave the job to Patrick Fitzgerald, a close personal friend. Unlike independent counsels under the now defunct statute, a special counsel is supposed to be under the Justice Department's supervision, and it would be interesting to hear Mr. Comey explain how appointing the godfather of one of his children to a high-profile job under his direction did not entail a conflict of interest.


Mr. Fitzgerald quickly found out that the leaker of Ms. Plame's identity was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a fact Mr. Fitzgerald kept secret for years. Yet instead of closing the case down, Mr. Comey signed off within weeks on an expansion of Mr. Fitzgerald's mandate. After a three-year investigation that turned up almost nothing new, the prosecutor tried to salvage his tenure with a dubious indictment of Scooter Libby for perjury.

Mr. Fitzgerald's Javert imitation, supported by his superior Mr. Comey, also managed to land New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail for 85 days for refusing to reveal her sources, and nearly did the same for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper.

And it's not just Comey. Unfortunately this type of conduct is all too common in the criminal justice system. It affects everyone from poor black defendants to businessmen and people like Flynn, who are unjustly convicted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...15650309268038

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by oeb11

The Rioters/Looters screaming for "Justice" - it is not about Chauvin - it is about being manipulated into violence by radicals on both sides - and encouraged by NYT "Pulitzer Prize" winners who nisist Rioting, butning, and Looting is not "Violence" - unless it happens to her.

What is the goal- as Clyburn said - never let a good crisis pass as an "Opportunity". (paraphrased)

it is armed revolution the radicals are fomenting. successfully - until armed Middle America decides to fight back!

radicals on both sides? you're talking about the left wing dpst commies and Fascists. who's the other side? right wing radicals? who would that be?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...but I think those candidates carry a lot of weight this year. ...

I knew Stacey Abrams was your gal. Just wasn't sure you were going to carry her across the finish line.