Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:59AM   Printer-friendly

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


Original Submission

Related Stories

President Trump Backed Off from Ordering Special Counsel Mueller Fired 59 comments

The New York Times reports "Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit":

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

Previously:
Mueller Investigation: Three Former Trump Aides Charged
Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I.
UK Election Results; Fired FBI Director's Testimony on Trump; Trump Nominates New FBI Director


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:23PM (92 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:23PM (#604235)

    If it isn't OK to lie to the FBI, then we can lock her up many times over.

    If it is OK, then Flynn shouldn't face his 0 to 5 years for that. Fair is fair you know.

    As for the actual conversations, Obama's state department approved them: https://i.redd.it/jyoknbutmf101.jpg [i.redd.it]

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:52PM (65 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:52PM (#604238)

      > 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 ambassador lying to the F.B.I.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:59PM (18 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:59PM (#604244)

        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)

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:49PM (#604285)

          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)

            by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:03PM (#604319) Homepage Journal

            "'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?

            --
            --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
            • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:51PM (4 children)

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:51PM (#604348) Journal

              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

                by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:03PM (#604421)

                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)

                by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:22AM (#604475) Journal

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:44AM (#604601)

                  why hasn't Kushner been indicted for his misrepresentations made under penalty of perjury in his SF86 form?

                  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

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:46AM (#604511)

                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)

            by Tangaroa (682) on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:05PM (#604332) Homepage

            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.

            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)

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:02PM (#604350) Journal

              When confronted with their guys being aggressively prosecuted for misdemeanors and trivial little matters that everyone in DC is guilty of

              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.

              Their concern is called the Rule Of Law and it is basic civics that you should have learned in junior high school.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:21AM (#604522)

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:57PM (#604689)

                  "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)

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:29PM (#604364)

            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.

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:32PM (#604402) Journal

              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

                by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:06PM (#604423)

                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)

              by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:57PM (#604416)

              Who do you want in the oval office then?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:09PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:09PM (#604452)

                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

              by tonyPick (1237) on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:42PM (#604683) Homepage Journal

              Maybe so, but that bitch should still be locked up for lying to the FBI too, among other things.

              Except that, according to the FBI, she didn't:
              http://uk.businessinsider.com/fbi-director-house-oversight-committee-2016-7 [businessinsider.com]

              Chaffetz then asked: "Did Hillary Clinton lie?"

              Here's the rest of the exchange:

              Comey: "To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."

              Chaffetz: "Did she lie to the public?"

              Comey: "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI."

              Chaffetz: "Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?"

              Comey: "Not to the FBI, not in a case we were working."

              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

            by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:39PM (#604371) Homepage Journal

            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)

        > pleaded guilty on Friday to conversations with the Russian ambassador lying to the F.B.I.

        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 favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:25PM (30 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:25PM (#604251)

          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

            Anyway, GGP said Obama administration approved conversations, which, true or not, is completely irrelevant.

            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 favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:22PM (26 children)

            by Spamalope (5233) on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:22PM (#604275) Homepage

            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)

              by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:45PM (#604283)

              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)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:52PM (#604287) Journal

                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.

                --
                On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:01PM (16 children)

                  by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:01PM (#604290)

                  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)

                    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:55PM (#604309) Homepage

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:25PM (#604342)

                      Hillary's stealing the nomination is what took the party down and they haven't learned a goddamn thing from it

                      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)

                    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:07PM (#604320) Homepage Journal

                    "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.

                    --
                    --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:02PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:02PM (#604349)

                      > You need REAL change, not Obama/Clinton/Trump change.

                      FTFY.

                      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13AM

                        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13AM (#604543) Homepage Journal

                        Sorry... thought that was a given :)

                        --
                        --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:32PM (7 children)

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:32PM (#604366)

                    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)

                      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:37PM (#604388)

                      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)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:08PM (#604424)

                        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

                          by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:21PM (#604456)

                          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)

                        by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:06PM (#604446)

                        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

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:25AM (#604502)

                          > 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)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:22AM (#604579)

                          A new administration won't be able to get it easily undone because laws are hard to change once passed (look at Obamacare)

                          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

                            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @07:38AM (#604592)

                            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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:47PM (#604412)

                    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

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:44AM (#604485) Journal

                    many believe

                    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.

                    --
                    On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:55AM (#604537)

                    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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:02PM (#604291) Journal

                guys, can't you understand?

                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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:36PM (#604344)

                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)

                  by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:15PM (#604357) Journal

                  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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:37PM (#604439)

                    GUYS, BERNIE CAN STILL WIN!!!

                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:25PM

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:25PM (#604459)

                    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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:24AM (#604547)

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:26AM (#604580)

                      > 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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:47PM (#604317)

            If FBI interviewed Flynn on a rainy day, and he said it was sunny, it would be the exact same crime.

            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

              by vux984 (5045) on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:13AM (#604497)

              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)

          by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:37PM (#604255) Journal

          OP linked an image of this story [washingtonexaminer.com].

          The State Department has "no problem" with President-elect Trump's team communicating with Russia or other foreign leaders during the presidential transition.

          "We stand ready, if they want to work through the State Department to contact some of these individuals, but we have no comment or no problem with them doing such [things] on their own," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

          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 favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:43PM (4 children)

            by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:43PM (#604282)

            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)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:42PM (#604328) Journal

              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!

              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:

              laws have ALWAYS been for little people.

              but its obvious that this witch hunt is 100% partisan, as the summary kind of implies. the repubs have nothing 'good' on her so they use this.

              bush: he created wars and tortured people. he got off 100% scot free. he was a monster but everyone gave him a pass and nothing happened to him, after doing so many monstorous things.

              if all you have is 'info sec' on hillary, that's damned weaksauce, guys. everyone who is not wearing red can see that.

              give it up and find something real to hunt someone over. the more you attack someone for petty bullshit, the less we want to support you (I'm talking to you, red-shirts).

              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]?

              President Trump promises to get U.S. economic growth for an entire year up above 3%, something that hasn't happened since 2005. Economists say the U.S. will likely not achieve 3% growth for 2017 because the first three months of the year were sluggish. First quarter growth was 1.2%. For the first nine months of this year, the U.S. is averaging 2.5% growth.

              The Federal Reserve forecasts that U.S. growth will hover around 2% for the foreseeable future. A mix of factors, such as sluggish wage and productivity growth, along with millions of Baby Boomers leaving the workforce to retire, have held back economic growth since the Great Recession ended in 2009.

              Still, the U.S. economy is on sound footing. Unemployment is 4.1%, the lowest since 2000. Jobs have been added for 84 consecutive months, the longest streak on record.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:14PM (#604426)

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:45AM (#604558) Journal

                  FBI director says there is none.

                  Looks like the FBI director said otherwise in a draft circulated through Congress [soylentnews.org] and notes in the very speech several felonies committed.

                  Flynn ADMITTED it.

                  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

                by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:15AM (#604474) Journal

                How did Trump get elected?

                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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:45PM (#604751)

            You believe the "Liar In Chief"?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Aegis on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:18PM

        by Aegis (6714) on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:18PM (#604340)

        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)

        by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:30PM (#604365) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday December 04 2017, @06:31PM (#605178)

          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.

          • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:53PM

            by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:53PM (#606342) Homepage Journal

            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

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:35PM (#604404)

        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...

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:08PM (17 children)

      It unfortunately is. See above for links. You can tell them the truth or not say a word but you can't lie to them. Personally, I call bullshit on that particular law. You're not in court, under oath when you're talking to law enforcement officers as a general rule. You should not be compelled to be truthful.

      --
      My favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:58PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @01:58PM (#604264)

        It unfortunately is. See above for links. You can tell them the truth or not say a word but you can't lie to them. Personally, I call bullshit on that particular law. You're not in court, under oath when you're talking to law enforcement officers as a general rule. You should not be compelled to be truthful.

        Was he read his Miranda Rights [wikipedia.org]? There is a mention in there that "anything you say may be used in a court of law".

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:11PM (2 children)

          Right but it does not say you are under oath or necessarily need be truthful.

          --
          My favorite Trump protest sign: All in all you're just another prick with no wall
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:34AM (1 child)

            by legont (4179) on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:34AM (#604508)

            What about mighty English grammar? Can I answer all the questions with "Sir, it might have had happened, officer, Sir"

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:21PM (1 child)

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:21PM (#604274) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, there are soooo many things wrong with this law. People make mistakes, people misremember, and under pressure sometimes people lie. The FBI loves to use this to entrap people.

        What's worse is, afaik, you are not allowed to make your own recording of an FBI interview. So there's actually nothing stopping them from lying about what you said.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:42PM (#604303)

        The only thing bullshit about it is that it's unidirectional. It should also be illegal for LEO to lie to suspects.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by tonyPick on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:50PM

        by tonyPick (1237) on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:50PM (#604306) Homepage Journal

        Ken White (from Popehat) has a good summary of this issue:

        https://www.popehat.com/2010/02/26/rule-2-go-re-read-rule-1/ [popehat.com]

        and here:
        https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/ [popehat.com]

        Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. To be a crime under Section 1001, a statement must be material — but the federal courts have generally supported the government's position that the question is not whether a false statement actually did influence the government, but whether it was the sort of false statement that could have influenced the government.

        (Note the dates - this is not a new tactic)

        And also here:
        https://www.popehat.com/2017/06/19/the-power-to-generate-crimes-rather-than-merely-investigate-them/ [popehat.com]
        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448755/trump-investigation-shows-how-easy-it-feds-create-crimes [nationalreview.com]

        This case is not necessarily a good example of overreach, since the thing he lied about is definitely material to the investigation, but it's worth highlighting this quote:

        however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:17PM (4 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:17PM (#604358)
        I think you missed ACs point, however.

        Yes, the law says this, but the point was about equal/fair treatment under that law.

        Flynn failed to be completely truthful in questioning. No other crime was found than that, so they charged him with that.

        H.R. Clinton lied many times over a period of years, in regards to behavior which was actually criminal, but she's not charged with anything.

        Yet another indicator that what we're looking at here is a political prosecution, part of a power struggle going on inside the government right now, and all the talk of laws and crimes is only cover for that.
        --
        "If Evolution Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Evolve."
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:27PM (#604381)

          He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of a plea deal. They have a lot more on him that they will charge him with if he doesn't cooperate and sing.

          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:34PM

            by Arik (4543) on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:34PM (#604387)
            "He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of a plea deal. They have a lot more on him that they will charge him with if he doesn't cooperate and sing."

            To be so naïve.
            --
            "If Evolution Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Evolve."
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:36PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:36PM (#604405)

          Flynn failed to be completely truthful in questioning. No other crime was found than that, so they charged him with that.

          Highly unlikely. If they had not found something worse (likely much worse), there would have been no incentive for him to strike a deal and plead guilty to a lesser charge.

          Disclaimer: I think every Democrat and Republican probably deserves jail time.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:35AM (#604555)

            1. He's military. There is a different attitude. You fess up.

            2. He can't afford a good lawyer for long enough. Costs will exceed $million. Only the rich can get a fair trial.

            3. With a guilty plea, a request for leniency may do better.

            4. He gets it over and done with so that he can get back to his family. If you had a choice, which ages of your children's lives would you miss? Answers may vary.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:56PM (#604415)

        "You should not be compelled to be truthful."

        The idea that being truthful is even possible forgoes some reasoned interpretations of what "truth" is. IMHO it is unlikely that you could speak the truth even if you were compelled. Truth is state, and that is all it is. And all other definitions of "truth" are deceptive by the nature and volume of assumptions that are heaped on. Each addition presumption creating new exceptions compounding the lie we called "awareness".

        While SCOTUS may find itself able to split hairs about "intent", to presume such prescient understanding is itself so arrogant as to be unequivocally fraudulent. After they read my mind perhaps they can walk on water and turn some water into wine.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:30PM (2 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:30PM (#604436) Homepage Journal

        It unfortunately is. See above for links. You can tell them the truth or not say a word but you can't lie to them. Personally, I call bullshit on that particular law. You're not in court, under oath when you're talking to law enforcement officers as a general rule. You should not be compelled to be truthful.

        As I understand it, lying to local/state police is *not* a crime unless you file a false report. This is not the case for *any* (FBI, IRS, DEA, ATF, etc.) federal law enforcement agency.

        Regardless, you should never, under any circumstances, even talk to any representative of law enforcement, let alone lie to them. [youtube.com]

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:47AM (1 child)

          by legont (4179) on Sunday December 03 2017, @01:47AM (#604512)

          While I tend to agree with you about talking to the "law", it is not very realistic approach. For example, does it mean that every say engineer working for any of law related agencies should have an attorney present with her all the time?

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:44AM

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 03 2017, @02:44AM (#604534) Homepage Journal

            While I tend to agree with you about talking to the "law", it is not very realistic approach. For example, does it mean that every say engineer working for any of law related agencies should have an attorney present with her all the time?

            It's quite realistic for me. If that approach causes you problems, you have my sympathy. No. I won't lend you any money.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:39PM (#604281)

      'whataboutism'

      gee, that was fast.

      LOLZ. last nite was a GREAT nite!

      Remember, remember, the first of December.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:46PM (#604346)

        There is nothing wrong with "whataboutism".

        So you've given it a cute name. That doesn't make it wrong.
        Your hypocrisy really does matter. Fairness also matters.

        When you support "your team" despite numerous felonies
        that undermine the USA, and then support prosecuting the
        "other team" over some trivial thing, you are showing your
        true disrespect for the idea of a country ruled by laws applying
        to everybody. You don't care. You just want that "other team"
        to get taken down, and you'll accept anything to make it happen.

        This is how we become third world.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:48PM (2 children)

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:48PM (#604305)

      flynn would not be offered a deal if mueller's team wasn't aiming at someone above him

      let that sink in for a moment.

      oh, and word on the street is that flynn was wearing a wire once they got him and offered him this deal. oops! yeah, heads will roll from this, pretty sure ;)

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:09PM (#604352)

        It's the Trump Whitehouse. Everyone is wearing a wire.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @07:26PM (#604362)

        Yes, we know their end-game is to overthrow the elected government, that sank in months back.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @05:30PM (#604326)

      Buttery Males!

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:47PM

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:47PM (#604347) Journal

      Perhaps you should ask the Orange One why his DOJ isn't going after her? I'm pretty sure he promised that it would.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:02PM

      by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:02PM (#604420) Homepage Journal

      If it isn't OK to lie to the FBI, then we can lock her up many times over.

      If it is OK, then Flynn shouldn't face his 0 to 5 years for that. Fair is fair you know.

      As for the actual conversations, Obama's state department approved them: https://i.redd.it/jyoknbutmf101.jpg [i.redd.it] [i.redd.it

      IIUC, the lying to the FBI charge was part of a plea bargain. Had Flynn not accepted it, he likely would have been convicted of multiple felonies which had prison sentences measured in decades.

      What's more, it's likely that Flynn is giving up others higher up the food chain to get such a deal. This isn't over. It's just beginning.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by crafoo on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:19PM (3 children)

    by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 02 2017, @02:19PM (#604273)

    How many times has the FBI lied to congress (the elected representatives of the people. Us.) How many times have security personnel lied to congress, and specifically to the national security subcommittee? Yes, let's get the liars out of politics. Let's also get control of our national security agencies and hold them accountable to the people.

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:04PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:04PM (#604292)

      "waiter! I ordered a plain nothingburger! but this one has felony convictions on it!"

      btw, its not about lying to the fbi. that's just the lower charge they gave flynn for FLIPPING ON THE REAL BAD GUYS.

      just give mueller more time, he aint done yet!

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:21PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:21PM (#604432)

      GREAT questions - get back to us when you find the answers. Until then, we'll be watching the administration go to prison.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:16PM (#604453)

        The head of the NSA lied to congress countless times during the Snowden leaks, so it's not as if we don't already know the answers.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:29PM (5 children)

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:29PM (#604297)

    here's some recap about trump and his band of thieves:

    - trump tweeted out a snuff film and embraced a hate speech organization from Britain.

    - flynn flipped and confirmed that trump and pence illegally colluded with russia to win the election

    - the GOP rushed a secret tax reform bill thru the senate in the dead of night and didn't let anyone read it

    - the GOP is pushing HARD to put a pedophile into the senate in alabama, and believes that its perfectly fine for 30+ year old men to fondle 14 year old girls

    this is some background for why we want that party OUT of office. its cancerous to this country and enough is enough, already!

    (the tax bill being pushed thru in the middle of the night without letting the dems read it in advance - does that not show you the level that these people will stoop to, in order to ROB YOU BLIND?)

    how much does it take to convince you to STOP putting party before country? sheesh!

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:24PM (#604316)

      I didn't bother reading the rest of your comment, since you clearly have no care for accurately representing the situation. If the rest of your comment was less disingenuous, sorry, but you screwed yourself by lying in the first bullet point.

      It was an execution video, not a snuff film.

      On the off chance this is a legitimate misunderstanding, you should know that snuff film implies the video is porn. You really don't want to tell anyone you watched a snuff film last night, because of a killing you saw on the news.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:59PM (#604318)

      - trump tweeted out a snuff film and embraced a hate speech organization from Britain.

      How much stupid can you fit in one sentence?

      - flynn flipped and confirmed that trump and pence illegally colluded with russia to win the election

      No he did not.

      - the GOP rushed a secret tax reform bill thru the senate in the dead of night and didn't let anyone read it

      Sure [nysun.com]

      - the GOP is pushing HARD to put a pedophile into the senate in alabama, and believes that its perfectly fine for 30+ year old men to fondle 14 year old girls

      Number of police reports filed zero [al.com] (unfortunately).

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:38PM

        by isostatic (365) on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:38PM (#604410) Journal

        How much stupid can you fit in one sentence?

        140 characters used to be the standard, but it's increased 280 recently.

    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:17PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:17PM (#604454)

      - the GOP is pushing HARD to put a pedophile into the senate in alabama, and believes that its perfectly fine for 30+ year old men to fondle 14 year old girls

      This isn't quite true. The mainstream GOP (esp. the non-Southern ones) is very embarrased by this, and they've been pushing Moore to drop out, but he's refusing and insists he's innocent even though a whole bunch of women are all telling the same story. Somehow, with the Trump fans, if a bunch of women make allegations about a Hollywood mogul, they must be true, but if the same thing happens to a GOP politician, it must be all lies.... Serious hypocrisy there.

      Anyway, the GOP is by no means united behind Moore, nor do they agree with fondling 14yo girls. The GOP is a lot of things, but it's unfair to paint all of them, including people like McCain and Romney and Boehner, with that brush. Now if you look at Evangelical Southern (esp. Alabama) GOP voters (and their politicians), then yes, I think it's entirely fair to say they all believe it's perfectly fine for 30+yo men to fondle 14yo girls. Evangelicals are a bunch of loons. But the GOP is no more united and of one mind than the Democrats are (e.g. Hillary vs Bernie voters).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:21PM (#604457)

      - the GOP is pushing HARD to put a pedophile into the senate in alabama, and believes that its perfectly fine for 30+ year old men to fondle 14 year old girls

      A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Fondling 14 year old girls does not make someone a pedophile, but an hebephilia. But this is about more than just sexual attraction, which is all these terms talk about; if he did what was claimed, then he is a rapist/sexual assaulter.

(1) 2