SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador last December during the presidential transition, bringing the special counsel's investigation into the president's inner circle.
Mr. Flynn, who appeared in federal court in Washington, acknowledged that he was cooperating with the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His plea agreement suggests that Mr. Flynn provided information to prosecutors, which may help advance the inquiry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 120 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will have domestic happiness and faithful friends.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:52PM (65 children)
> If it isn't OK to lie to the FBI, then we can lock her up many times over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism [wikipedia.org]
> As for the actual conversations, Obama's state department approved them: https://i.redd.it/jyoknbutmf101.jpg [i.redd.it] [i.redd.it]
> pleaded guilty on Friday to
conversations with the Russian ambassadorlying to the F.B.I.(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:59PM (18 children)
So you've given it a cute name. That doesn't make it wrong.
Your hypocrisy really does matter. Fairness also matters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:49PM (17 children)
its a cute name because the right, when confronted with how evil THEIR guy really is, refuse to directly reply and instead choose 'but but but .... HER EMAILS!'. or some other long dead issue that they refuse to let die.
its when you have nothing to say about the REAL CURRENT issue, that people say 'yeah, logical fallacy of 2017: whataboutism'.
and we will have none of it. when we see that as your argument, we laugh in your face. you just lost the argument when you dish out that old 'but her emails' or 'but benghazi!' or whatever old skeleton you want to use for distraction purposes.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:03PM (5 children)
"'but but but .... HER EMAILS!'. or some other long dead issue that they refuse to let die."
SHE refuses to let it die: remember a certain book she is pushing hard? Take all responsibility for not winning while blaming EVERYONE but herself or Wasserman-Schulz or Bill or......ad nauseum.
SHE does not let it die, why should they?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:51PM (4 children)
Because as adults and normal people we should be able to do better than a lizard politician. Hilldawg is old news now - she is running around vacuuming up the last bits of money she can from her experiences in politics. Yes she is a terrible person but pointing it out isn't going to help anything. Let it go so she can fade out to history. Yeah she'll get richer and win more than us little people but that doesn't mean we can't be better persons than her.
Her name is just noise and bringing it up is just generating heat. Christ all-mighty even the most rabid liberals stopped complaining about the second Bush not too long after Obama took office to the degree that other liberals around you would shut you down for bringing him up because it was old news and not useful.
Bringing up Hillary or her emails or what ever does absolutely nothing useful at all. It might raise your standing in your social network if you are in one that is still hunting her but for those outside of that circle it is counter productive because people will not believe you have anything of value and you'll be discounted.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:03PM
The DNC is hellbent on repeating every mistake of 2016 possible. https://medium.com/@PlowPlot/tom-perezs-great-dnc-purge-of-sanders-supporters-isn-t-about-politics-6833feef7944 [medium.com]
So if you don't want to see Trump win a second term, it is important to keep reminding the DNC of recent history -- including its incompetence and complicity in bringing about a Trump presidency. This means refusing to allow it to ignore and make excuses for the abject failure of Clintonism (aka Republicanism) to motivate people by constantly bombarding the bastards with scorn till they crawl away and hide under the rock from whence the came. For-fucking-ever.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:22AM (1 child)
If we are going to follow a "whatabout" argument, then, why hasn't Kushner been indicted for his misrepresentations made under penalty of perjury in his SF86 form?
At this point, his security clearance should have been revoked many times over. Yes, I know that Trump has the authority to reinstate it, but that is what should have happened. The OPM or FBI or whoever granted his clearance should have revoked it and force Trump to reinstate it.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:44AM
Because Muelluer is going up the food chain. Just because nothing happened to Kushner yet doesn't mean nothing will happen.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:46AM
The second Bush went off to quietly make oil paintings. Why can't she do that?
Republicans peacefully took their loss. They didn't riot in multiple cities, burning vehicles. They didn't shoot a group of democrat congress members -- which was very good for you because republicans shoot better than Bernie supporters. They didn't assault a democrat member of congress as he innocently mowed his lawn. They didn't beat a Hillary supporter with a bike lock. Switching the identities around, you've done all that.
Why can't you be peaceful? You're acting like the fictional Trump supporters that you claimed would riot if there were a Hillary win.
Before the election, you said that Trumps was threatening democracy by suggesting that the election could be stolen. Now you claim it was... yet still oppose any measures to ensure election integrity because you damn well know who was committing fraud that night and thought she had stolen enough votes.
So no, we aren't going to forget her. She isn't old news until you can fully condemn her, accepting Trump as the clearly better choice and the fully legitimate winner. You need to accept that you voted for a terrible person, and that Trump is in fact not terrible.
It's too bad you get to enjoy our rapidly improving economy. You fought that. You don't deserve it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tangaroa on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:05PM (3 children)
When confronted with their guys being aggressively prosecuted for misdemeanors and trivial little matters that everyone in DC is guilty of, they point to the other side NOT being prosecuted for felonies and serious crimes up to and including treason. Their concern is called the Rule Of Law and it is basic civics that you should have learned in junior high school.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:02PM (2 children)
I'm not sure what you are talking about here, can you please elucidate? Is this in reference to the article at hand and lying to the FBI is a trivial matter everyone does? You may be right that everyone does it but I don't think I'd call it trivial. If there is something else you are thinking of please let me know I am genuinely curious.
I doubt that their concern is the rule of law actually. I'm not a Hilary fan by any means; in fact I don't like her at all. I originally wanted to see prosecution on the email handling issue, which was quite bad, and the assorted related issues like destruction of evidence. However to go back one hop in history of presidential administrations then worry about violation of the email handling processes for federal employees in that capacity and then think this is universal application of the rule of law to the problem is pure fantasy. There have been a large number of senior staff in the white house over the past few administrations from either party that have admitted to handling their email in the same way. I got over it because everyone is getting away with it so what really can be done?
True universal application of the law would include going after them unless the statute of limitations has been exceeded. I don't think anyone claiming they want to prosecute HIllary to maintain the rule of law has any interest at all in going back to figure out who else needs to have the book thrown at them including people in their party.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:21AM (1 child)
Trump supporters really dislike the Bush crime family. It's like this...............
It starts way back with the father of the older one. He tried to organize a coup (the fascist "Business Plot") and he fought McCarthy's effort to protect our country from communism.
Then the older one was involved in some shady stuff. He ran the CIA, and was in Dallas when JFK was shot. Hmmm.
Then the older one got to be VP under Reagan. Oddly, Reagan got shot. Hmmm.
Finally we elected him, the democrats having offered a clone of Carter as an alternative. Bush jacked up taxes and took away gun rights. WTF??? This is not what we wanted. He also did lots of globalist shit that later led to job losses. Grrr...
Bush would've signed NAFTA. We tried for Perot, knowing that'd probably fail, and let a democrat win. Bill also screwed us, signing NAFTA. Well, the alternative was Bush signing it.
Along comes the second Bush. Aw, fuck. He's a dipshit, but the alternative is Gore. Gore openly wants to fuck our economy. OK, well Bush it is then.
Then we're offered Kerry. He seemed kind of slimy, and "better the devil you know", so Bush again. Ugh. That was an unpleasant vote.
McCain is yet another globalist, as is Obama. Why do they all hate America? I think most of us went for McCain, very reluctantly, but Obama got out the vote and won.
Romney is yet another awful globalist. His career was buying up American companies, getting rid of American workers, and then selling the companies. Can you see why we didn't elect him?
For 2016, it was looking like another Bush/Clinton battle. WTF. Get us off this merry-go-round of globalists. Oh, there's this wild guy Trump who at least bothers to promise the right stuff and has a history of energetically getting shit done. Let's try that! So we gave heartburn to the entire republican establishment, few of whom give a shit about America. We're now enthusiastically trying to work with Bannon to chuck the unpatriotic congress critters, mostly via the republican primaries.
...............so we're totally down with prosecuting a Bush or two. They can join the Clintons at a supermax prison. Let's do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:57PM
"He ran the CIA, and was in Dallas when JFK was shot. Hmmm."
and had just had a successful practice run with noriega
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:29PM (5 children)
Maybe so, but that bitch should still be locked up for lying to the FBI too, among other things. She is one of the most corrupt pieces of shit in Washington. I wouldn't mind Obama going in there, but it's a bit more contentious to label him a traitor and make it stick in the eyes of the law. Obama is just one of the biggest liars on the planet.
My idea? LOCK THEM ALL UP. Hillary, Bill, Obama, Bush, Darth Vader (Bush's VP), Trump, Flynn, Manafort, Pence, and Trump's fucking abhorrent Children of the Corn too.
Nobody has really suffered any consequences in politics, at least not at that level. We get a couple of Senators from time to time, but those are the idiots too brazen with their crimes. The "quiet" crimes from all of the other Senators, like dark money, bribes, etc. still goes on every second of the day. Something makes them betray the people for monied interests.
Yeah, there is a lot of whataboutism going on, but seriously, WHAT ABOUT IT? Nobody from any side in politics is receiving justice. This isn't really justice either, but more like getting Al Capone on taxes. Flynn is guilty of COLLUSION with Russia, along with Manafort. Fuck going for perjury, let's go for TREASON. You know, the one with a DEATH PENALTY.
Let's kill some people in government for their traitorous actions. Maybe that might get politics moving in the right direction again.... consequences for people's actions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)
Amen, brother. Burn them all.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:06PM
Forget the politicians -- employees are a dime a dozen -- look harder at their employers.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
Who do you want in the oval office then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:09PM
We'll just have to keep imprisoning anyone who gets into the oval office if they can't stop violating the Constitution. Not supporting things such as the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance, the TSA, the countless undeclared wars going on overseas, etc. is a must. If there were real consequences for violating the law and/or the Constitution, we would have fewer violators.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:42PM
Except that, according to the FBI, she didn't:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/fbi-director-house-oversight-committee-2016-7 [businessinsider.com]
You can argue she's been dishonest in a number of ways, however proving perjury involves more than demonstrating that: See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/proved-perjury-charges-hillary-clinton/story?id=41451995 [go.com]
But starting off mentioning something you would *like* to be true as a fact, even though it's not, isn't making your argument any more convincing.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:39PM
Ugh... NO! Hey but wait... haven't you yourself engaged in "Whataboutism" just now???? This is the true face of left - it is bunch of crooks who want to carve out a niche for genuine frauds. "Oooh being a snake is so much better than being a toxic tiger."
Just because HC's name is associated anywhere, it doesn't make a fraudulent made-up word like "whataboutism" any credible. It belongs to politicians trying to fool the simple minded, not in any serious discussion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:03PM (40 children)
Erm... you're going to need to point out where GP, the summary, TFA, or your links said differently. I can't find it. So you're essentially saying exactly what GP said but with misleading nonsense thrown in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:25PM (30 children)
Wow, you completely misread that. Compare my "modified" quote to the original quote in TFS.
Anyway, GGP said Obama administration approved conversations, which, true or not, is completely irrelevant. Flynn didn't plead guilty to having conversations, he pleaded guilty for LYING ABOUT IT to the FBI. If FBI interviewed Flynn on a rainy day, and he said it was sunny, it would be the exact same crime. For what it's worth, I do think it's a ridiculous law.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:45PM
Thus the "As for the actual conversations," clause of that sentence. It lets the reader know they're entering a tangent rather than speaking directly to the point. You're getting worked up over something that simply is not there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:22PM (26 children)
Was Flynn obligated to answer FBI questions as a condition of his employment? Because otherwise he shouldn't have answered except in writing and through an attorney. The interview process is dangerous for a careful, honest person. It's massively more dangerous for a salesman type who runs their mouth, whether they intend to mislead or not. I don't have a dog in this particular hunt, but am upset about the apparent double standards - corruption on that scale destroys faith in gov't - which destabilizes things.
But really though, what's talking when they're looking for a way to 'turn' someone look like?
Your interview is anywhere from a few hours to multiple days. Possibly extended until the desired result is achieved.
You get a single detail wrong from any question: Jail
You have mental superpowers and are able to answer perfectly even when the interviewers are trying to trip you up. (no actual person can do this) They have another person on record who gives details that differ from yours - even if you're right: Jail (they can presume the other person is right - their discretion)
You answer correctly. The interviewer notes your answer incorrectly.: Jail (their record is the only one that matters)
Thus lawyers having sudden memory loss when cornered - 'I don't recall' and such.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:45PM (25 children)
sigh.
guys, can't you understand? this is not about flynn. its about the upper mgmt! they are simply walking up the chain of command and will get the real bad guys (donny two-scoops, hopefully) in due time. this is what many people are expecting and its why last nite was such a great night for so many of us.
we hate seeing our country stolen by the likes of the orange one and his gang. the sooner we can remove him and his corrupticians, the better. this country needs to return to something close to normal before its truly too late.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:52PM (17 children)
Be careful what you wish for. Is it better to have the buffoon in charge, or to allow his handlers to just take over? You do realize that Trump won't be replaced by anyone you like.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:01PM (16 children)
its time to TRULY drain the swamp.
many believe that trump AND pence will both roll.
this will cause many R's to switch sides and could change the landscape of things for the next election cycle.
we're all hoping this can cause some return to normality. with ajit the idiot burning down the internet so the rich media and isp co's and divide it all up; and with the house trying to ram down the 'tax the poor even more' bill, we really need this whole exec team to be removed, as soon as possible.
once one or two top guys are removed, it will have a healing effect and may even cause the R's to do some soul searching about what they really want to be seen as. right now, what they're seen as - is a word I should not use in polite company.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:55PM (1 child)
Hillary's stealing the nomination is what took the party down and they haven't learned a goddamn thing from it, still neglecting the White Americans in favor of minority welfare votes.
There is still more trouble for the Democrats a-brewin -- Debbie and the Awan brothers, Obama's use of the deep state, the extent of Hillary's foreign gun-running and secret-selling, and illegals committing voter-fraud in favor of Clinton.
And it's really a goddamn shame that there were no viable third-party candidates. Gary Johnson, for whom I had previously voted, went full-retard on the dude-weed and can barely hold a conversation without giggling every 5 seconds. Jill Stein is a hoary open-borders Jew who wanted to push our standard living to that of the third-world.
Of course Bernie was typically Democratic and big on Socialism, which is a dog-whistle for welfare state with low standards of living, but at least he was also populist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:25PM
They didn't learn from Humprey and McCarthy; why would they learn this time?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:07PM (2 children)
"could change the landscape of things for the next election cycle."
From one toilet into another?
Status quo, same old same old?
You need REAL change, not Obama/Clinton change.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:02PM (1 child)
> You need REAL change, not Obama/Clinton/Trump change.
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13AM
Sorry... thought that was a given :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:32PM (7 children)
You can believe what you want about Pence "rolling" with him, but it's unlikely. If Trump goes down, we're going to be stuck with Pence, which is 100 times worse. Trump is a loud buffoon, but really we're better off with him than with Pence.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:37PM (6 children)
pence will try his religious shit and some will stick, perhaps; but once he's out and a new admin is in, it very likely will all be undone.
the orange one, otoh, is burning the place to the ground. some things are harder to undo than others.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:08PM (1 child)
Pence will have 0 popular support. Trump has his 35% loons. Once he's done, I don't see them rallying to the cause of religious piety and (more) tax cuts.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:21PM
Popular support isn't that important; support of Congress is. Trump doesn't have it, so he's not getting much done that can't be done with just executive orders. Pence is actually competent and has support from the GOP, and would get a lot of nasty stuff passed.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:06PM (3 children)
Pence will have plenty of support from the Republicans in Congress, and he'll get a bunch of stuff passed. A new administration won't be able to get it easily undone because laws are hard to change once passed (look at Obamacare), and Democrats aren't going to sweep Congress despite the delusions of some Dem voters: GOP voters are just a lot better at getting out to vote unfortunately, especially in mid-term elections. The best Dems can hope for is a small majority in Congress, but that's about it and that's really unrealistic at this point; the DNC still hasn't recovered from last year and still has huge internal divisions.
The orange one isn't getting along well with Republicans in Congress and isn't getting anything passed. So far, what significant new laws has he signed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:25AM
> GOP voters are just a lot better at getting out to vote
GOP operatives are just a lot better at gerrymandering the voting districts
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:22AM (1 child)
In general, yeas, but that's a bad example. If Rs spent an afternoon and crafted a repeal that wasn't outright Machiavellian, it would pass in a heartbeat... especially since they still own both houses of Congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:38AM
Most of the republicans are RINOs (Republican In Name Only) that have been paid well by the companies making money off of Obamacare.
The RINOs actually like having a democrat in the whitehouse. This lets them vote for things their donors hate, knowing that a presidential veto makes the gesture meaningless. The repeal they claimed to desire was just a way to win votes.
Now that they know Trump might actually sign a repeal, they have to find a different way to make it fail. The donors would be pissed if the repeal passed.
So the strategy is to fall one vote short. The RINO voting with the democrats is serving a master other than the voters. Who should that RINO be? Well, some choices...
It can be a person who will not run for reelection. McCain was this from the start, being really old. Now he's even dying of brain cancer.
It can be a person who gets blackmailed. The main currency traded in DC is not dollars or votes but dirt. Powerful people have dirt on everybody. With that, you can demand that somebody vote as you like. If a supposed republican votes against the repeal and isn't obviously not running for reelection, you can be sure there is a huge scandal. For example, maybe he's raping little boys and the senate majority leader reminds him of it before asking for a vote against repeal.
So that's all it is. They want the repeal to fail, due to money, and they find a way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:47PM
Of course. The Republicans should want to be seen as Democrats in better-fitting suits, right?
Hence the pervasive disgust with BOTH sides of the Demoplican Uniparty.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:44AM
I'll bet none believe that they can be charged with insurrection. The talk I've heard over the past thirteen or fourteen months does lead to insurrection, or rebellion, mutiny and sedition charges. There has been a hell of a lot of ugly talk, which could lead to open civil war.
You're being played for fools. Useful fools, to someone, but fools all the same.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55AM
All you had to do was offer a patriotic American.
You don't seem to have any, but supposing you did, the election was yours to win. They all are in fact. The trouble I believe is funding. We saw in 2016 that it takes $600 million to win or $1300 million to lose. Patriotic Americans don't get support from globalist corporations and they certainly don't get $200 million from dealing uranium. How is a patriotic American supposed to fund a campaign? He'd need fuck-you money like Perot, Trump or Notch.
Other than the funding issue, it's damn easy: Support our rights, including gun rights. Stop immigration entirely, unless you can perfectly restrict it to small numbers of high-skilled non-Muslims. Build the wall. Deport millions of people who are depressing wages and stealing identity. Toss out the regulations that keep American factories from being competitive. Take action to eliminate the non-English areas that are forming in our country. Put us first in international negotiations; the Paris accords for example were unacceptable. Don't discriminate against Asians and whites, as democrats often do, or obviously against anybody else.
If you take offense against being pro-American however, you deserve to lose.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:02PM
Breaking the law is just fine as long as my team is the only one doing it!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:36PM (5 children)
Because that is what you get.
No, impeaching Donald Trump does not get you Hillary Clinton. No, it doesn't mean Bernie Sanders still has a chance; that was stolen a year and a half ago.
You get Pence.
Not that you can impeach him (determined by the House) or convict him (determined by the Senate) of course. Mueller can't do either. All he can do is bitch. Check the constitution; he has no power. The people with power are not going to impeach...
...but even if they did, you get Pence. Pence, Pence, Pence, glorious Pence! Wonderful Pence!
We impeached Bill Clinton. Ever wonder why the Senate didn't convict him? Gore was your Pence.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:15PM (4 children)
I'm hoping that the investigation is going to lead to the entire results of the election being called into question and it being invalidated. There might not be precedent for it but that doesn't mean we aren't ripe for a nice constitutional crisis. I agree removing Trump and getting Pence is bad and it would take a while of following the line of succession before I'd like the replacement.
I've been told this is essentially calling for a coup but my argument is that if the election was influenced by external actors and illegally so with the knowledge, consent, and possibly even direction of the campaign that won we have found the true coup.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:37PM
GUYS, BERNIE CAN STILL WIN!!!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:25PM
Is there actually any law that can be used to call into question the election if it was "influenced" by external actors?
After all, what do you consider campaign advertisements to be? They're attempting to influence voters, and they frequently use lies and half-truths. Are they somehow OK just because they're paid for by politicians (or these days, their PACs), and somehow Russian propaganda is "bad" because it's not American-made? That seems pretty ridiculous to me.
The voters were exposed to lots of information, some true, some not so much, just like they have been in EVERY election. All political advertising is propaganda after all, plus we have freedom of speech here. The voters made their decision and cast their votes, and there's no evidence I've heard of that the actual voting results were tampered with.
I'm sorry, I don't see how Russia being involved would change anything at all. Direct collusion between politicians and Russia would definitely look bad, and may even be illegal somehow, but I don't see how this can invalidate the election.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:24AM (1 child)
The senate election in New Hampshire was influenced by external actors (Massachusetts residents) and illegally so with the knowledge, consent, and possibly even direction of the campaign that won.
You have a stolen senate seat.
There are also external actors illegally in California, giving an extra 10 electoral votes to that state. To use your favored wording, this disenfranchises people elsewhere. Other states have the problem too, generally blue states. Based on this alone, the 2012 election was likely won via the presence external actors illegally here with the knowledge, consent, and possibly even direction of the campaign that won.
Using a low estimate, 800,000 of those illegal aliens voted. That is enough to throw many states, obviously including Florida in 2012.
You stole a presidential term.
So, um, what do you propose to do about those?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:26AM
> Using a low estimate, 800,000 of those illegal aliens voted. That is enough to throw many states, obviously including Florida in 2012.
Oh for the love of... Do you have any facts, any facts at all, to support this idiotic allegation? If there were any, Republicans, who currently have an iron grip on the entire federal government and have been screaming "voter fraud" for decades, would've been all over that.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
The lie does have to be relevant to an investigation for it to be criminal. The bar is very low -- basically the state just has to prove that the lie was on a subject that sortof might be relevant. But saying it is sunny on a rainy day probably would not count...
Still, it is always better to just shut up.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:13AM
It is not sufficient to tell an untruth, you have to do it 'knowingly and willfully'. Read the law.
Yes, people get in trouble all the time when they talk to the police and make conflicting statements etc. This can be used to damage their crediiblity as a witness, since it raises reasonable doubt about their recollections etc. If there is a bunch of other evidence against them, then damaging their credibility helps get a prosecution of the other crime over the hurdle of reasonable doubt.
But to actually get convicted of making false statements itself the prosecution has to show intent; they have to convince a jury you were intentionally trying to deceive them, and not merely tripped up, or forgetful, or mis-remembering. And now reasonable doubt works in YOUR FAVOR, because if the jury has a 'reasonable doubt' that you intended to deceive you are not guilty.
For the prosecution to charge Flynn of making false statements, that doesn't mean he misremembered the weather and thought it was sunny vs rainy; it means he lied about something substantial with the intent to deceive; it means the prosecution at least *thinks* that not only can they prove Flynn made false statements, but that he did so knowingly, willfully, with intent to deceive... beyond a juries reasonable doubt.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:37PM (8 children)
OP linked an image of this story [washingtonexaminer.com].
The reply pointed out that Michael Flynn is pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, not talking to Russians. It is in fact a crime to lie to the FBI. The linked story was an irrelevant addition to that comment since it doesn't matter at all if the Obama administration "approved" of conversations. Flynn could have chosen to be honest.
The only thing left to address is: Did Hillary Clinton lie to the FBI? Comey said she didn't [politico.com]. Others disagree. For example, President Trump said [twitter.com] Comey "lied and leaked and totally protected Hillary Clinton".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:47PM
See above re: irrelevant addition. We tangent and make secondary points around here all the time. It's not something to get bent out of shape over.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:43PM (4 children)
more whataboutisms?
this is NOT ABOUT HILLARY.
this is NOT ABOUT OBAMA.
(shit, its not even about clinton, and yet I see all the 'what about ...' brought up all the damned time)
this is about trump and his corrupt gang of swamp-dwellers. and the country is now enjoying some sweet auto-correction of the downturn we have been in the last year or so. and this party has just started!
stay on topic. this is not about any previous or past presisent or would-be president. the ONLY things that are relevant are trump, the russians and his gang that sold the US out so they could rob us all blind.
fuck them. fuck them all hard. prison is too good for the lot of them.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Touché) by khallow on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:42PM (3 children)
Here's a learning moment. How did Trump get elected? In large part because the Democratic nominee, that would be Clinton, got away with criminal gross negligence. I don't have her FBI transcripts or her internal mental state at the time, so I don't know if she lied to the FBI or not. This is a classic double standard in play.
And let us note that you probably won't be so excited about the FBI, if Trump should obtain the same control over the organization that Obama enjoyed. Finally, let me remind you of something you wrote in defense of Clinton:
Surely, lying to the FBI is even more petty than felony gross negligence with respect to info sec.
I personally approve of the FBI investigation. If we want laws to be something other than for the "little people", then the powerful need to be subject to them as well.
Second, what downturn [cnn.com]?
The economy isn't soaring, but it's no downturn either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:14PM (1 child)
Proof proof proof? Any proof at all or you're just flinging more whataboutisms. FBI director says there is none.
Flynn ADMITTED it. Flynn is definitely guilty. 0-5 years for him.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:45AM
Looks like the FBI director said otherwise in a draft circulated through Congress [soylentnews.org] and notes in the very speech several felonies committed.
While that's (usually) a stronger standard of proof, I consider the Clinton email mess sufficiently proved. Obviously, you don't for some reason.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:15AM
Because Comey did something he should not have done: commented publicly on an ongoing investigation, which turned up nothing anyway.
Without Comey's last minute intervention, Trump would not have been elected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)
You believe the "Liar In Chief"?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:54PM
I was just quoting the most prominent (yet least likely to deliver) proponent of "LOCK HER UP".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aegis on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:18PM
I love that they're using Obama for this particular whataboutism.
Obama warned Trump that Flynn was compromised! [politico.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:30PM (2 children)
Unrelated to this topic, "Whataboutism" isn't an argument, it is just a made-up word for the left that in their mind gives them the moral high ground after getting caught being a fucking hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday December 04 2017, @06:31PM (1 child)
You're correct, it isn't an argument. It is an immediate refutation to demonstrate the logical fallacy of a reply to an argument. And it is grounds to say that you're not replying to the allegation which has already been made, you're distracting from it. So that those of us who want to stay on topic can do so.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:53PM
Except that argument is not how one is picking a side now is it? This is the bullshit that left pulls out to sway naive and fools. This is exactly why liberalism is so popular among college students and teens. The game is about power, and the rules ought to be equal, above all. Just like I can't break your legs before a race then claim that you are weaker than me and hence my victory is fair, even though that's factually correct. And if I do and still get to keep the prize, then you ought to do the same in next race. And if you do, I don't get to claim "whataboutism". That's not an argument or refutation or anything, that's simply being a dishonest fraud.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:35PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
There there you have it. Ajit Pai is fucked. Not to mention all of Congress, the executive branch, and one or two Sepreme Court Justices...
Must be a "do as I say not as I do" thing...