Ex-Nat. Security Chief Flynn pleads guilty

by Original Quill Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

ABC News wrote:Flynn pleads guilty, reaches deal on charge of lying to FBI

MATTHEW MOSK, ADAM KELSEY and VERONICA STRACQUALURSI
December 1, 2017

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, once a member of President Trump’s inner circle of advisers, has pleaded guilty in a deal with the Special Counsel investigating foreign meddling in the 2016 elections in which he admits to lying to the FBI about his back-channel conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn’s plea signals the former top adviser to President Trump is now cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. A brief statement released by Mueller’s team Friday morning does not say what information Flynn has provided the government as part of the deal, but people familiar with the agreement told ABC News Friday he has made a decision to assist investigators.

The general told confidants about his decision to plead guilty in the last 24 hours, according to people close to Flynn, who say the former adviser feels President Trump has abandoned him and has agreed to answer questions about the president or anyone else.

Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Those conversations led Russian officials to temper their response to increased U.S. sanctions, according to the charging documents. The charge means Flynn could face up to 5 years in prison.

Flynn becomes the latest and most-senior Trump associate to face charges in Mueller's probe and is scheduled to appear in court at 10:30 a.m. He has already been processed at the FBI Washington Field Office, according to FBI officials, where he was fingerprinted and photographed.

Flynn's lawyer meets with members of special counsel's team, raising specter of plea deal

Kushner met with special counsel earlier this month, conversation focused on Flynn

Flynn had initially resisted cooperating with the investigation, according to people close to the retired general, but he has been facing mounting legal debts and plans to sell his house to help defray costs.

He only recently learned the full scope of the charges he could potentially face. Last week, Trump lawyers received calls from Flynn’s lawyer Robert Kelner, alerting them that he could no longer participate in information exchanges with other possible Mueller targets, the first public indication that a plea deal was in the works.

On Monday, Kelner was spotted exiting a meeting at Mueller’s offices in Washington, ABC News reported.

Flynn is a decorated military officer who once headed the Defense Intelligence Agency and, after leaving government, spoke frequently at Trump campaign rallies. He began facing scrutiny after it was learned he took payment to attend a Russian television event, at which he appeared seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That scrutiny only increased after he took over as Trump’s national security adviser. He was ultimately forced to resign after just a few weeks on the job after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about his meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn initially denied that he discussed U.S. sanctions placed on Russia with Kislyak, but transcripts of Flynn and Kislyak’s phone calls reviewed by Justice Department lawyers showed otherwise.

Flynn was paid over $500,000 by foreign clients for consulting work and speaking fees – including contracts he allegedly failed to list on applications for security clearances and financial disclosure forms. He also only belatedly disclosed lobbying work his firm engaged in on behalf of the Turkish government.

Trump reportedly attempted to persuade the FBI to drop its investigation into Flynn’s conduct. In a Feb. 14 meeting at the White House, Trump reportedly told then-FBI Director James Comey to “let this go.”

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump told Comey, according to a memo Comey wrote afterwards, which was later described by the New York Times. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

On Oct. 30, two members of Trump's campaign staff, former campaign chair Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates, were indicted on 12 counts brought by Mueller's team related to work done prior to joining the Trump campaign, including conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money and serving as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal.

That same day, it was also revealed that a third Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty earlier in the month to making false statements to FBI agents probing his attempts to arrange a meeting between Russian officials and the campaign.

ABC News' Jack Date, Geneva Sands, Mike Levine, and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

First, Papadopoulos pleads guilty and admits he was colluding with Russians for the Trump Campaign. Then Manafort and his aide are indicted. Now, Flynn tips and goes state's evidence. Who is he giving evidence on? There ain't many above him...Trump Jr., son-in-law Kushner, AG Jeff Sessions...or the fat enchilada himself.

by Guest Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:That's what you said months ago

Yep. As true now as it was then. Takes time, worry-boy. TICK--TOCK.

nothing takes that long

either you have the evidence or you don't, if you have the evidence then you move on it, if you don't then that's when it takes time, you dig around in the dirt hoping to find something, anything.

meuller ruined his career, he better hope that the private sector will employ him because after this fiasco he is done in government

all i will say is that he should have taken not of crookeds face when she lost - total shock, because she surrounded herself with liars and yes men, the same liars and yes men that told meuller about the collusion

they fucked him well and truly

by Original Quill Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:31 pm

TICK--TOCK.

by Guest Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:57 pm

How may ticktocks you got on that clock??

Must be loads, it never seems to run down

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:00 am

Is meuller an Al-Q operative??

He did oversee the exodus of bin laden family members from the US when all flights were grounded

Hhhmmm

by Original Quill Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:21 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:How may ticktocks you got on that clock??

Must be loads, it never seems to run down

The law is slow, but methodical. Twisted Evil

by 'Wolfie Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:24 am

smelly-bandit wrote:Is meuller an Al-Q operative??

He did oversee the exodus of bin laden family members from the US when all flights were grounded

Hhhmmm

It was the Bush adminstration that facilitated the removal of the bin Ladens back home from the USA...

Not hindered, in turn, by the small fact that the extended Bush family, and Halliburton, had favourable business connections with the wider bin Laden clan..

by Guest Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:39 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Is meuller an Al-Q operative??

He did oversee the exodus of bin laden family members from the US when all flights were grounded

Hhhmmm

It was the Bush adminstration that facilitated the removal of the bin Ladens back home from the USA...

Not hindered, in turn, by the small fact that the extended Bush family, and Halliburton, had favourable business connections with the wider bin Laden clan..

Meuller was involved and made it happen

by Guest Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:40 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:How may ticktocks you got on that clock??

Must be loads, it never seems to run down

The law is slow, but methodical.

Hope so

Wouldn't want meuller to miss anything, like hiring an FBI agent who had clear anti tump bias.

by Original Quill Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:04 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The law is slow, but methodical.

Hope so

Wouldn't want meuller to miss anything, like hiring an FBI agent who had clear anti tump bias.

Everyone has bias. Do you think Trump isn't biased?

Nothing wrong with bias in a democracy...it's expected. The key is to be objective.

by Guest Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Hope so

Wouldn't want meuller to miss anything, like hiring an FBI agent who had clear anti tump bias.

Everyone has bias. Do you think Trump isn't biased?

Nothing wrong with bias in a democracy...it's expected. The key is to be objective.

And there I was thinking that the law was above bias.

Guess the law is just mob justice after all

by Original Quill Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:26 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Everyone has bias. Do you think Trump isn't biased?

Nothing wrong with bias in a democracy...it's expected. The key is to be objective.

And there I was thinking that the law was above bias.

Guess the law is just mob justice after all

The law is bias. A bias for rule over human caprice.

What you are struggling to express is 'objectivity'. That is the dedication to rigorous, empirical fact-finding, and pursuit of a question to it's natural consequence regardless of outcome.

Bias is what we hope people have in a democracy. It's the foundation for prospective policy, right or left.

by Guest Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

And there I was thinking that the law was above bias.

Guess the law is just mob justice after all

The law is bias. A bias for rule over human caprice.

What you are struggling to express is 'objectivity'. That is the dedication to rigorous, empirical fact-finding, and pursuit of a question to it's natural consequence regardless of outcome.

Bias is what we hope people have in a democracy. It's the foundation for prospective policy, right or left.

so you're in favor of bias??

so why are you always whining about the KKK?? they are only expressing bias based on racial characteristics

by Original Quill Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:04 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The law is bias. A bias for rule over human caprice.

What you are struggling to express is 'objectivity'. That is the dedication to rigorous, empirical fact-finding, and pursuit of a question to it's natural consequence regardless of outcome.

Bias is what we hope people have in a democracy. It's the foundation for prospective policy, right or left.

so you're in favor of bias??

In a way, yes. A lot of Anglo-American systems are dependent upon the adversarial system. No one can know what the ultimate truth is, so we simply take a vote on it. Certainly that's what a trial is...a contest between a plaintiff and a defendant. That's also what an election is...a contest between Democrat and Republican, or whatever party you have. The blend of wills, each of which are a form of bias, is supposed to provide the best solution.

sb wrote:so why are you always whining about the KKK?? they are only expressing bias based on racial characteristics

Because some things are supposed to be above the competitive arena. They are considered absolute. They are what guarantee the very structure of politics and society. We call those things constitutional rights, because they are a part of the fabric that holds society together. Each person should be allowed to vote. Each person should be allowed to earn a living. Each person is entitled to due process of law. And so forth. If we didn't provide those absolutes, we wouldn't be guaranteeing the right to the system.

The KKK was organized to deny those fundamental and systemic rights to a class of individuals...the rights of certain individuals to participate fairly in the benefits of society. They were originally opposed to African-Americans, but they also transgress on the rights of Jews and Catholics...anyone who doesn't conform to their white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant mold. As such, they are simply banished, as unwilling to engage in society. Hey...if you don't want to play fair, you can't play at all.

by Guest Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:38 am

So you want bias but you're bias about what bias is acceptable??

Clear as mud

by Original Quill Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:11 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:So you want bias but you're bias about what bias is acceptable??

Clear as mud

People in a democracy want bias, but with structure. Therefore, they structure a constitution to allow for bias.

People have different ideas, and thus different biases. They are co-products of democracy. Democracy is about allowing those biases to meld in a system that comes out with a single answer. They vote, and the outcome of that vote is the single answer.

If you are asking for an attorney in the Mueller team to have no biases, you are asking for someone with no ideas...no mind. That's impossible. But people with jobs to do--and attorneys have jobs--are asked to be objective about their jobs.

So, it's no surprise that you find an attorney with an opinion, but he may be the best at being objective, despite the fact that his opinions are against yours. How do you think attorneys work on both sides of a case? They detach their biases, and proceed with an objectivity.

by Guest Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:So you want bias but you're bias about what bias is acceptable??

Clear as mud

People in a democracy want bias, but with structure. Therefore, they structure a constitution to allow for bias.

People have different ideas, and thus different biases. They are co-products of democracy. Democracy is about allowing those biases to meld in a system that comes out with a single answer. They vote, and the outcome of that vote is the single answer.

If you are asking for an attorney in the Mueller team to have no biases, you are asking for someone with no ideas...no mind. That's impossible. But people with jobs to do--and attorneys have jobs--are asked to be objective about their jobs.

So, it's no surprise that you find an attorney with an opinion, but he may be the best at being objective, despite the fact that his opinions are against yours. How do you think attorneys work on both sides of a case? They detach their biases, and proceed with an objectivity.

So you're happy that a man who hates trump is on the team that's assigned to take trump down??

What could go wrong with that??

by Original Quill Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:26 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

People in a democracy want bias, but with structure. Therefore, they structure a constitution to allow for bias.

People have different ideas, and thus different biases. They are co-products of democracy. Democracy is about allowing those biases to meld in a system that comes out with a single answer. They vote, and the outcome of that vote is the single answer.

If you are asking for an attorney in the Mueller team to have no biases, you are asking for someone with no ideas...no mind. That's impossible. But people with jobs to do--and attorneys have jobs--are asked to be objective about their jobs.

So, it's no surprise that you find an attorney with an opinion, but he may be the best at being objective, despite the fact that his opinions are against yours. How do you think attorneys work on both sides of a case? They detach their biases, and proceed with an objectivity.

So you're happy that a man who hates trump is on the team that's assigned to take trump down??

What could go wrong with that??

Not a thing. As long as everyone does their job properly.

by Guest Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:20 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

So you're happy that a man who hates trump is on the team that's assigned to take trump down??

What could go wrong with that??

Not a thing. As long as everyone does their job properly.

So in theory

You would be happy for members of the nazi party to be the judges and jury at the nuremberg trials??

So long as they did their jobs correctly

by Original Quill Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:04 pm

SB wrote:So in theory

You would be happy for members of the nazi party to be the judges and jury at the nuremberg trials??

So long as they did their jobs correctly

Actually, the German mind is a good one to have on a jury. A jurist has to be focused on the given principles of law, and must process each fact accordingly. German's have that ability to concentrate and leave extraneous matters aside.

Still, we are talking about lawyers here, not soldiers fresh out of conflict. Lawyers are trained to focus on law and fact. A trial is a demonstration of what happened in the past, by present available evidence. It's an art form, combining logic and convincing evidence.

Bias is actually counterproductive. With a trial, you've got to know how to put on a production that convinces others. Bias would only get in the way. So, it works this way Russ:

Bias = Distraction = Poor showing = Favors the accused.

As I said, the really good lawyers are proficient at being objective and detached, not letting bias interfere. I should think Trump would benefit from a lot of poor lawyering on the other side.

Trump's lawyers realize this. That being the situation, an attack on Mueller for reasons of bias can only be for one purpose: stop the investigation. Mueller's lawyers are too good!!! Trump's lawyers know, by the questions Mueller is asking in private interviews, he [Mueller] is close to proving a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump people. They are sweating.

by Guest Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:13 pm

More equivocation

Not all nazis were soldiers and indeed most German troops weren't nazis.

But among the nazi party there were great legal minds and intellectuals of all sorts.

You're happy for anti trump investigators to investigate trump and since you are too much of a coward to give a straight answer

I'm going to assume on your behalf that you're happy for nazi lawyers and judges to have presided over the nuremberg trials

by Original Quill Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:28 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:More equivocation

Not all nazis were soldiers and indeed most German troops weren't nazis.

But among the nazi party there were great legal minds and intellectuals of all sorts.

Well, isn't that what I said; or is there an echo in here?

sb wrote:You're happy for anti trump investigators to investigate trump and since you are too much of a coward to give a straight answer

I'm going to assume on your behalf that you're happy for nazi lawyers and judges to have presided over the nuremberg trials

Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups. Should I assume that you haven't read what I did say? Your excursion into Nazi Germany is a ruse, for dramatic effect. The real point is that bias, for the good lawyer, is not a danger.

You, like Trump, are afraid to face the real answer. That's because, what I am doing is destroying your case. Mueller is doing the same thing to Trump.

And that's the reason for this all this bitching and moaning about Mueller's team.

by Guest Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:50 pm

Don't matter Quill

By NOT answering, you have done a great job OF answering.

Ever heard the phrase "don't let the fox guard the henhouse??

by Original Quill Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:58 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Don't matter Quill

By NOT answering, you have done a great job OF answering.

Ever heard the phrase "don't let the fox guard the henhouse??

I'm bored. If you have nothing to add, I have things to do.

by Guest Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Don't matter Quill

By NOT answering, you have done a great job OF answering.

Ever heard the phrase "don't let the fox guard the henhouse??

I'm bored. If you have nothing to add, I have things to do.

You've given me all the answers I was looking for.

You are dismissed to carry out your other duties

by Guest Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:14 am

by Original Quill Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:33 pm

TICK-TOCK...

by Guest Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:56 am

REPORT: Robert Mueller May Indict Paul Manafort AGAIN – Here’s Why

Legal circles in Washington D.C. believe special counsel Robert Mueller will file superseding indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates to “grind” down the defendants, according to a new report from the Daily Beast.

A superseding indictment would replace the current indictment against Manafort, which includes charges related to money laundering, making false statements, and other charges connected to political lobbying he did in Ukraine — none of which are connected to the 2016 election.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, said he expects the superseding indictment to be filed against Manafort soon.

“There was much in the narrative of the indictment that referenced crimes not charged,” Turley said. “Prosecutors will often issue a superseding indictment as the grand jury continues its work. There’s also a tactical reason for this, that superseding indictments tend to grind defendants a bit more over time.”

The Beast’s report hints that Mueller might be preparing to file charges against Manafort for tax-related crimes since he had money in a foreign bank account and did not “check a box on their tax forms disclosing it.” Citing an unnamed former prosecutor from the Department of Justice, the Beast said Mueller gave Manafort a “speaking indictment” — which intentionally contains more information than necessary.

“It’s a way of dirtying up a defendant without having to actually prove the conduct,” the former prosecutor told the Beast. “I think, in fairness to them, they probably rushed it because they didn’t want to wait for the tax division approval on those tax counts. That, I assume, would be working its way through the system.”

Any time federal prosecutors want to charge someone with breaking tax law, they must get approval from the Justice Department’s Tax Division. That approval process can be time consuming, and the would-be defendant’s attorneys often can petition Tax Division lawyers against authorizing the charges. Following the money, it turns out, can be circuitous.

Martin Sheil, a former supervisory special agent for the IRS’ criminal investigations unit, said that superseding indictments are common in financial investigations because defendants are often resistant to cooperating and because financial investigations can take a long time to complete.

MuMueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

Mueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25112/report-robert-mueller-may-indict-paul-manafort-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

by Guest Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:56 am

What's gone wrong Quill??

Thought you had it in the bag??

by Original Quill Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:00 pm

SB wrote:What's gone wrong Quill??

Wrong??

DW wrote:Legal circles in Washington D.C. believe special counsel Robert Mueller will file superseding indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates to “grind” down the defendants, according to a new report from the Daily Beast.

So many crimes...so litttle time. Laughing

The key, as I've said, is November 2018 vote. The House and Senate need to be strongly Democratic for impeachment to go through.

by Guest Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SB wrote:What's gone wrong Quill??

Wrong??

DW wrote:Legal circles in Washington D.C. believe special counsel Robert Mueller will file superseding indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates to “grind” down the defendants, according to a new report from the Daily Beast.

So many crimes...so litttle time. The key, as I've said, is November 2018 vote. The House and Senate need to be strongly Democratic for impeachment to go through.

what are they going to impeach him on?? his use of foul language??

yeah ok

by Original Quill Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:57 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Wrong??

So many crimes...so litttle time. The key, as I've said, is November 2018 vote. The House and Senate need to be strongly Democratic for impeachment to go through.

what are they going to impeach him on?? his use of foul language??

yeah ok

Conspiracy. Probably two or more counts--CFAA, wire fraud, perhaps mail fraud--which elevates it to RICO violations. The December meeting between Kushner and Kislyac, in which Kushner asked for a back channel through the Russian mission, could be construed as treason--Espionage Act violations--as well as Logan Act violations.

The biggest problem Trump has begins in October 2008, when the crash comes down. He was in debt to Deutsche Bank for about $640-million for the construction of Trump Tower, Chicago. Deutsche Bank sues Trump. While the litigation is pending, another branch of Deutsche Bank, representing private, well-off depositors, from the Moscow office, swoops in like a white knight, and lends Trump the money to pay off the debt.

WTF...a borrower (Trump) is already in default, and in litigation, and the same bank lends him the money on his signature? Huh??? The money comes from the bank's left back-pocket, and goes into the bank's right back-pocket. Is the bank walking away from a half-billion dollars?

Or is a covert depositor in Moscow securing a loan for Trump, getting Deutsche Bank out from under, and setting the hook for future demands/favors from Moscow? I think it's called Konpromat. And of course, Trump is already obligated, due to past indiscretions, to go along with it. Who knows? Maybe the pot was sweetened with a 20% share of Rosneft Oil. Wink

And who, in Moscow, would be powerful enough to cow the biggest bank in Germany out of $640-million, or rich enough to help Trump avoid a 6th bankruptcy?

Oh, and um...why don't we have Trump's tax returns, which would answer all these questions?

So many questions, Russ...so little time.

by Guest Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:47 am

by Original Quill Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:37 pm

Around November...

by 'Wolfie Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:00 am

smelly-bandit wrote:REPORT: Robert Mueller May Indict Paul Manafort AGAIN – Here’s Why

Legal circles in Washington D.C. believe special counsel Robert Mueller will file superseding indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates to “grind” down the defendants, according to a new report from the Daily Beast.

A superseding indictment would replace the current indictment against Manafort, which includes charges related to money laundering, making false statements, and other charges connected to political lobbying he did in Ukraine — none of which are connected to the 2016 election.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, said he expects the superseding indictment to be filed against Manafort soon.

“There was much in the narrative of the indictment that referenced crimes not charged,” Turley said. “Prosecutors will often issue a superseding indictment as the grand jury continues its work. There’s also a tactical reason for this, that superseding indictments tend to grind defendants a bit more over time.”

The Beast’s report hints that Mueller might be preparing to file charges against Manafort for tax-related crimes since he had money in a foreign bank account and did not “check a box on their tax forms disclosing it.” Citing an unnamed former prosecutor from the Department of Justice, the Beast said Mueller gave Manafort a “speaking indictment” — which intentionally contains more information than necessary.

“It’s a way of dirtying up a defendant without having to actually prove the conduct,” the former prosecutor told the Beast. “I think, in fairness to them, they probably rushed it because they didn’t want to wait for the tax division approval on those tax counts. That, I assume, would be working its way through the system.”

Any time federal prosecutors want to charge someone with breaking tax law, they must get approval from the Justice Department’s Tax Division. That approval process can be time consuming, and the would-be defendant’s attorneys often can petition Tax Division lawyers against authorizing the charges. Following the money, it turns out, can be circuitous.

Martin Sheil, a former supervisory special agent for the IRS’ criminal investigations unit, said that superseding indictments are common in financial investigations because defendants are often resistant to cooperating and because financial investigations can take a long time to complete.

MuMueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

Mueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25112/report-robert-mueller-may-indict-paul-manafort-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Ex-Nat. Security Chief Flynn pleads guilty - Page 5 3489511464

More 'Daily Wire' alt.news to pad out Komrad SmellyDumbski's tomfoolery...

Not to worry, Smelly', Komrads gelibellyskova and VoDskova are sure to have your back..

jocolor

by Original Quill Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:37 pm

sb wrote:Mueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

Chump change. Police will spend that much on a retrial. The Select Committee of the House spent nearly $7-million chasing bogus claims about Benghazi. Republicans have spent $4.445 million on the investigation, and Democrats $2.325 million, and they got zilch. Adding up all committee expenses spent on Benghazi, it comes to $14-million.

There are several important aspects about the Mueller investigation. It involves organized crime. It involves money laundering, and the child sex crimes that it supports. And it involves a president.

Further, the investigation has indicted four important criminals, and convicted two of them. Pretty good, I says.

by Guest Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Mueller's investigation has already cost taxpayers more than $6.7 million and has yet to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with Russian officials.

Chump change. Police will spend that much on a retrial. The Select Committee of the House spent nearly $7-million chasing bogus claims about Benghazi. Republicans have spent $4.445 million on the investigation, and Democrats $2.325 million, and they got zilch. Adding up all committee expenses spent on Benghazi, it comes to $14-million.

There are several important aspects about the Mueller investigation. It involves organized crime. It involves money laundering, and the child sex crimes that it supports. And it involves a president.

Further, the investigation has indicted four important criminals, and convicted two of them. Pretty good, I says.

which investigation are you talking abouts??

the one with trump

or the one where the Clinton sells Russia loads of uranium??

you must have heard of "uranium one"??

do you want to have a bet?

i bet you that crooked goes to jail before trump does

by Original Quill Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Chump change. Police will spend that much on a retrial. The Select Committee of the House spent nearly $7-million chasing bogus claims about Benghazi. Republicans have spent $4.445 million on the investigation, and Democrats $2.325 million, and they got zilch. Adding up all committee expenses spent on Benghazi, it comes to $14-million.

There are several important aspects about the Mueller investigation. It involves organized crime. It involves money laundering, and the child sex crimes that it supports. And it involves a president.

Further, the investigation has indicted four important criminals, and convicted two of them. Pretty good, I says.

which investigation are you talking abouts??

the one with trump

or the one where the Clinton sells Russia loads of uranium??

you must have heard of "uranium one"??

do you want to have a bet?

i bet you that crooked goes to jail before trump does

Clinton had nothing to do with 'uranium one', regardless of the fact that there was nothing wrong with the deal. Republicans throw any old sheit against the wall in order to see what sticks. They see the keywords 'Clinton' and 'Russians' and they figure here's a great mirror-image counter for the Mueller investigation.

Clinton was the Secretary of State. The sale was passed by The Committee on Foreign Investments, which has nothing to do with the US Department of State. It was run by for a look-see by the departments of treasury, state, defense department, homeland security, commerce and energy and the attorney general. They all gave it a nod. It's just white noise.

by 'Wolfie Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:59 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Chump change. Police will spend that much on a retrial. The Select Committee of the House spent nearly $7-million chasing bogus claims about Benghazi. Republicans have spent $4.445 million on the investigation, and Democrats $2.325 million, and they got zilch. Adding up all committee expenses spent on Benghazi, it comes to $14-million.

There are several important aspects about the Mueller investigation. It involves organized crime. It involves money laundering, and the child sex crimes that it supports. And it involves a president.

Further, the investigation has indicted four important criminals, and convicted two of them. Pretty good, I says.

which investigation are you talking abouts??

the one with trump

or the one where the Clinton sells Russia loads of uranium??

you must have heard of "uranium one"??

do you want to have a bet?

i bet you that crooked goes to jail before trump does

Clinton didn't sell Uranium to Russia, you lying and incompetent dumbfuck moron...

Both Bushes did; and so did Australia (a.k.a. the world's #1 exporter of Uranium -- another educational tidbit for Komrad SmellyNoKlueski..)..

Go shove some yellowcake up your racist backside, you white-supremacist Apartheid scum.

by Guest Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:21 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

which investigation are you talking abouts??

the one with trump

or the one where the Clinton sells Russia loads of uranium??

you must have heard of "uranium one"??

do you want to have a bet?

i bet you that crooked goes to jail before trump does

Clinton had nothing to do with 'uranium one', regardless of the fact that there was nothing wrong with the deal. Republicans throw any old sheit against the wall in order to see what sticks. They see the keywords 'Clinton' and 'Russians' and they figure here's a great mirror-image counter for the Mueller investigation.

Clinton was the Secretary of State. The sale was passed by The Committee on Foreign Investments, which has nothing to do with the US Department of State. It was run by for a look-see by the departments of treasury, state, defense department, homeland security, commerce and energy and the attorney general. They all gave it a nod. It's just white noise.

Stutter splutter stammer

But but but but, what I meant was..........

You don't like it when the shoes on the other foot do you??

Crooked is going to jail

by Guest Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:23 am

An 11-count indictment was handed out on Friday connected to the alleged Russian bribery scheme involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and Uranium One.

The charges are against Mark Lambert, who is the "former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad." Lambert, 54, of Maryland, was charged with "one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering," the DOJ said in a statement.

The charges are connected to the alleged bribery scheme that involves "Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX."

TENEX is the commercial sales arm for Russia's Rosatom, which took full control of Uranium One in 2013.

A report from October revealed that federal agents started collecting evidence in 2009 about Russian officials that were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering connected to the Uranium One deal:

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

In December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered that prosecutors at the DOJ start "interviewing FBI agents about evidence they uncovered in a criminal investigation into a highly-controversial uranium deal that involves Bill and Hillary Clinton."

by Original Quill Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:24 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Clinton had nothing to do with 'uranium one', regardless of the fact that there was nothing wrong with the deal. Republicans throw any old sheit against the wall in order to see what sticks. They see the keywords 'Clinton' and 'Russians' and they figure here's a great mirror-image counter for the Mueller investigation.

Clinton was the Secretary of State. The sale was passed by The Committee on Foreign Investments, which has nothing to do with the US Department of State. It was run by for a look-see by the departments of treasury, state, defense department, homeland security, commerce and energy and the attorney general. They all gave it a nod. It's just white noise.

Stutter splutter stammer

But but but but, what I meant was..........

You don't like it when the shoes on the other foot do you??

Crooked is going to jail

Nothing to it...

by Guest Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Stutter splutter stammer

But but but but, what I meant was..........

You don't like it when the shoes on the other foot do you??

Crooked is going to jail

Nothing to it...

I bet you anything you want that crooked will see the inside of a jail cell before trump does

by Original Quill Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:29 pm

sb wrote:In December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered that prosecutors at the DOJ start "interviewing FBI agents about evidence they uncovered in a criminal investigation into a highly-controversial uranium deal that involves Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Totally political. Sessions is Trump's lapdog. Trump wants a push-back argument. He googles keywords: Russian deals... He comes up with this. A little fake news twisting of the story, and voila...

FBI do-over. Waste of money...

by Original Quill Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:34 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Nothing to it...

I bet you anything you want that crooked will see the inside of a jail cell before trump does

She's never been accused of any crime. Ex-Nat. Security Chief Flynn pleads guilty - Page 5 2190311264

Trump has...three months after he took office.

by Guest Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I bet you anything you want that crooked will see the inside of a jail cell before trump does

She's never been accused of any crime. Trump has...three months after he took office.

Tick.......... Tock

by Original Quill Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:In December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered that prosecutors at the DOJ start "interviewing FBI agents about evidence they uncovered in a criminal investigation into a highly-controversial uranium deal that involves Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Totally political. Sessions is Trump's lapdog. Trump wants a push-back argument. He googles keywords: Russian deals... He comes up with this. A little fake news twisting of the story, and voila...

FBI do-over. Waste of money...

Hillary Clinton is old news. The fact that we are even talking about her is indicative of the political framing of the discussion. She's no longer in politics; it's political talk, designed to work up the Trump base. It's only raised by Trump to deflect from the very real accusations against him. It's not newsworthy.

Waste of newsprint...

by Guest Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Totally political. Sessions is Trump's lapdog. Trump wants a push-back argument. He googles keywords: Russian deals... He comes up with this. A little fake news twisting of the story, and voila...

FBI do-over. Waste of money...

Hillary Clinton is old news. The fact that we are even talking about her is indicative of the political framing of the discussion. She's no longer in politics; it's political talk, designed to work up the Trump base. It's only raised by Trump to deflect from the very real accusations against him. It's not newsworthy.

Waste of newsprint...

Meuller is a broke dead dog begging to be out down.

Trump however promised to lock her up, and according to CNN, Trump is a keeper of promises.

Tick tock

by Original Quill Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:31 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Hillary Clinton is old news. The fact that we are even talking about her is indicative of the political framing of the discussion. She's no longer in politics; it's political talk, designed to work up the Trump base. It's only raised by Trump to deflect from the very real accusations against him. It's not newsworthy.

Waste of newsprint...

Meuller is a broke dead dog begging to be out down.

Trump however promised to lock her up, and according to CNN, Trump is a keeper of promises.

Tick tock

She's yesterday's news.

Haha...however, your first sentence seemed to me to be apt in another context: "[Trump] is a broke dead dog begging to be cut down." I've often thought that he is politically self-destructive.

Ex-Nat. Security Chief Flynn pleads guilty - Page 5 2396444674

Ex-Nat. Security Chief Flynn pleads guilty - Page 5 2396444674

by Guest Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:16 pm

Fusion GPS, firm behind disputed Russia dossier, retracts its claim of FBI mole in Trump camp

Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS founder who sponsored the unverified anti-Trump dossier, claimed in August and again Jan. 2 that the FBI has a source inside the Trump camp who lent credence to the document

When a transcript of his secret August testimony was released on Tuesday, news headlines immediately latched onto the disclosure as a boon to a dossier whose core charges of Donald Trump-Russia collusion have been denied and not confirmed publicly.

Then suddenly, as quick as the headlines went up, some one close to Fusion was waving off reporters. Mr. Simpson had “mischaracterized” the source. It was not some one on the Trump inside, but apparently an Australian diplomat.

He was featured in a Dec. 30 New York Times story as the source who tipped off the FBI. Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos told him over drinks that a Russian-linked professor knew of “thousands” of Hillary Clinton emails in the hands of Moscow.

How Mr. Simpson knew of the diplomat last August was unclear. He would have known of him in January when he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he again told of an insider source.

As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp,” he wrote.

Moments after Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, unilaterally released the transcript, the inside-source story spread, especially in London. The city is home base of Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy who wrote the dossier.

In his testimony, Mr. Simpson told of Mr. Steele’s meeting with FBI agents in Rome in September 2016. Mr. Steele told Mother Jones magazine he was trying to jump-start an investigation into Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

Mr. Simpson testified, “Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization

by Original Quill Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:05 pm

It was not a mole. It was Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who met George Papadopoulos in a London pub where the member of the Trump team told him of the Russian connection.

The Steele dossier was just a remarkable confirmation of all of the details. The Republicans tend to stress the salacious details of the dossier (which are also true) in an effort to discredit it. However, it is the economic side of the Trump/Russian collusion that is most significant. Trump got played by the Russians through Deutsche Bank, to the tune of $640-million. Now that the hook is set, he (Trump) must dance to Putin's tune.

by Sponsored content