Flynn Walks

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

So why did MSNBC apologize if nothing was taken out of context?

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

Do you mean why did Chuck Todd apologize? I thought I already outlined that. Todd will run laps to appease conservative critics if there's even a whiff that criticisms could be legitimate. His sense of fairness, or what he thinks makes him look fair, demands it. You're operating from the wrong premise about who Todd, and people like him, are.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10523
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 8:49 am
When both-sideism becomes nihilism
Yeah, the foundation of society requires people to make reasonable distinctions between when calling for a person to be jailed is due to actual improper behavior and when it is due to political allegiance. It turns out that people like Ajax have one weird trick to hack the brain of people whose main heuristic for figuring out if something can be dismissed as partisan is whether two sides with power can be presented in disagreement. Just project the corrupt and criminal behavior of their leaders onto their enemies with the thinnest possible veneer of argument and present it as a serious debate for serious people. Worst case scenario, you muddy the waters. Best case scenario, you grease the skates to there being no truth but who holds power.
It's interesting that you view my position as nihilist. I look at where we are as a country and don't like the direction it's going. But when looked at through a historical lense, we are not over the precipice by any measure. But in historical terms these things tend to escalate as "both sides" assert more extreme reactions to political opponents are required to counter balance the wrongs being done which creates a sort of inevitability that carries nation's over. In a negotiation over the future of society, heated and reactionary war footings lead to war. If one champions a civil, pluralistic society, one has to act in accordance with those beliefs when discussing the issues taking us to the edge.

In that sense, I'm less concerned about subbie and ajax than I am with people who aren't already on Team Boogaloo. But you are in another category, talking like a mirrored version of ajax like you're already marshalled on the other side of the field waiting for the shooting to commence as an inevitability tied to forces outside anyone's control. Only, you talk like someone who incites a fight, then dodge off to tut tut everyone for not having heeded the warning a fight was breaking out. Clearly someone without kids and deep social attachments from what you've shared I can see the way it may work out in your mind as not your problem since you'll ride it out either way according to your calculations. I'm not for that, regardless of how inevitable some may think that is, nor do I see acknowledging multiple perspectives as giving ground to an enemy so much as meeting them where they are. If there is hope for the future, it will have to come in the form of rational, moderate people continuing to resist the self-destructive narcissism of extreme views from all sides. Wars suck. Wars suck a lot more than some careless people seem to realize.

User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

Only, you talk like someone who incites a fight, then dodge off to tut tut everyone for not having heeded the warning a fight was breaking out.
Icarus is just as militant and determined to escalate the violence cycle as EAllusion and he has kids. From what he tells us he has a happy marriage as well. Wars suck in a silmilar way that divorce sucks. Sometimes they are necessary.

User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

If EAllusion were libertarian he'd be more in line with Rand Paul who believes the Obama administration was using the power of the presidency to illegally spy on a political opponent. Unmasking of a political opponent as Senator Paul says is the same thing as illegally wiretapping someone's private conversation, something any purported libertarian should be concerned about. The foreign agent was not promising to blow up the capital nor anything worthy of unmasking a political opponent in this conversation with a Russian agent. It's essentially the same issue of using the power of government to attack a political opponent, the same accusation that incited Democrats to go through with a partisan impeachment of President Trump. Imagine someone not knowing anything about the partisan political landscape trying to make sense of this in an apolitical legal textbook. It's simply incomprehensible and irrational without understanding legal realism.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10523
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 6:34 pm
Wars suck in a silmilar way that divorce sucks.
No. No it doesn't.

You love your daughter? Imagine everyday there being enough of a chance the building she is in gets blown to ____ all that you both think about it all the time. Or someone kicking in a door she's behind with no intention of asking questions before shooting. Imagine her living the rest of her life having had her best friends gore blown over her face, seeing bodies in the streets, living in constant fear of any of the above happening at any moment.

That's just you and your daughter. Multiply that by everyone. You think quarantine sucks? You have no clue what you're wishing for, and apparently think it's about the same as the loveless marriage you feel trapped in. I guarantee you'd trade back in a heart beat.

User avatar
Icarus
First Presidency
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:01 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Icarus »


User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

Icarus wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:29 pm
Anywho... wouldn't this be something?

Judge Weighs Holding Michael Flynn In Contempt, Keeping Guilty Plea In Place
A Bill Clinton appointed judge and Howard alumni. No, nothing new here, just more partisanship.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20814
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Ajax, “Wars suck in a silmilar way that divorce sucks. Sometimes they are necessary.”

Ah. Hrm. Well. As a veteran of both a miserable’ish marriage (and subsequent divorce) and a bit of war, I can tell you war was much, much less debilitating for this average joe than divorce was. That said, I don’t see any good reason to enter a war, unless it’s an existential threat. Divorce, though? Gtfo of a bad situation.

- Doc

User avatar
Icarus
First Presidency
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:01 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Icarus »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:50 pm
Icarus wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:29 pm
Anywho... wouldn't this be something?

Judge Weighs Holding Michael Flynn In Contempt, Keeping Guilty Plea In Place
A Bill Clinton appointed judge and Howard alumni. No, nothing new here, just more partisanship.
Did you miss the part where a conservative bench just struck down Wisconsin's stay at home order? Did you miss the part where Flynn was only released because Trump has politicized the Justice Dept so much that thousands of former prosecutors have called for Barr to be removed?

Every time you make idiotic comments like these you only go to prove EAllusion's point about you.

User avatar
Icarus
First Presidency
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:01 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Icarus »

While FOX is wailing and moaning about the hideousness of CHuck Todd's deception, they're perfectly cool with lying about Fauci's comments.

Tucker Carlson lied about Fauci's testimony on schools reopening
In his remarks, Tucker Carlson excluded key context around Dr. Anthony Fauci’s comments during a May 12 Senate hearing regarding whether schools can reopen in the fall in an effort to paint the public health official as unreasonable and drunk on power.

Carlson claimed that Fauci “implied that schools and colleges would be able to reopen only if there is a cure for this virus, or a vaccine. He said that prospect was a bridge too far. In other words, no school until the coronavirus has been cured -- stopped. ... Fauci says that children must stay home or countless people will die, that's the message.”

Carlson’s unhinged rant does not reflect reality. Here’s what really happened: Following a question from Sic et Non. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) about what guidance Fauci would give to the chancellor of the University of Tennessee Knoxville about reopening campus in the fall, the public health official said, “I would be very realistic with the chancellor and tell her that in this case, that the idea of having treatments available, or a vaccine, to facilitate the reentry of students into the fall term would be something of a bit of a bridge too far.” Fauci added, “If this were a situation where you had a vaccine, that would really be the end of the issue in a positive way. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, even at the top speed we’re going, we don’t see a vaccine playing in the ability of individuals to get back to school this term.”

Later, Fauci clarified his remarks, saying “I did not mean to imply at all any relationship between the availability of a vaccine and treatment and our ability to go back to school.” The clarification was even included on Fox’s 6 p.m. “news”-side show, Special Report with Bret Baier.

But just hours later, Carlson ignored this context from his own network in order to attack the public health expert, and in doing so his characterization of Fauci’s remarks was completely inaccurate and intentionally misleading. Unfortunately, if Tuesday’s ratings from the prior week are any guide, it would be fair to estimate that at least a million more people watched those false claims on Tucker Carlson Tonight on May 12 than saw the full context on Special Report.
Where is your outrage ajax?

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

1) The "unmasking" list refers to people who potentially would've been informed, not the specific people doing the unmasking. 2) You don't necessarily know who know the person is until they are unmasked, though context clues may provide enough hints to make a decent inference. That's why it refers to unmasking them. Up to that point, it's just a US citizen caught in foreign intercepts doing dubious things. In this case, it's clearly appropriate to understand who the person is, at least in the instances we know about, to understand the underlying intelligence.

2) Rand Paul had a very different idea of executive authority during impeachment proceedings. Not knowing about his Trump sycophancy, I'd be tempted to write his bizarre behavior off as just part of the John Bircher black helicopter conspiracy mongering popular in the Lew Rockwell crowd he hails from, but since I do know about his Trump sycophancy, I'm more inclined to seem him as a hypocrite who is an eager participant in Republican attempts to kick dirt in voters faces with ginned up pseudo-scandals. Happily, one of my favorite libertarians, Julian Sanchez, is CATO's primary expert on surveillance and politics. Let's see what he has to say:

https://twitter.com/normative/status/12 ... 4422759426

Oh. I guess one can be a libertarian and not agree with Rand Paul.

User avatar
Icarus
First Presidency
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:01 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Icarus »

"The Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss. . . . It is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

Why would a UN ambasador Samantha Powers need to unmask Gen Flynn. We have Brennan on video telling Trey Gowdy he doesn't recall unmasking Flynn, Samantha Poweres telling a reporter the unmasking claim was false, and Biden saying he only was briefed when in fact today we've learned they all specically requested the unmasking. of Gen. Flynn. This is a clear violation of the 4rh amendment.

We wouldn't know any of this had DJT lost the election. If he wins again we'll find this is just the tip of the iceberg. Obama was never brought to justice on Benghazi. I'd be surprised if Obama goes to jail. But the tables are turning. We heard for 3 years about Mueller. Now you're goingv to learn the name John Durham.

User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6385
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by ajax18 »

Icarus wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 8:52 pm
"The Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss. . . . It is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
I guess they'll have to invent the crime of perjury for withdrawing perjury guilty plea, which doezn't currently exist.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

That's just an incorrect summary of the facts Ajax.

"Below is a list of recipients who may have received Lt. Gen. Flynn's identity in response to a request processed between 8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 to unmask an identity that had been generically referred to in an NSA foreign intelligence report."

That doesn't mean everyone on the list made a specific request for unmasking. It means it is a list of people deemed privy to it of which some may or may not have. These are intercepts of communications between foreign parties intelligence was surveilling that happen to involve a US citizen engaged in dubious behavior relevant to intelligence investigation (including US nuclear security) that would need to be identified to know what is going on. There's nothing unlawful or improper about this. You're just riding an innuendo high and not even thinking about why it would be unlawful. Someone leaked that information, ultimately for the good of the country as it turns out, and there is no doubt an effort to uncover and punish that person, but you're not even relying on that. Just vague gesturing and exclaiming Unconstitutional!

Speaking of Mueller, remember how you said Flynn did nothing wrong? One of the things the Mueller report details out, with Flynn's cooperation for a plea deal, is how Trump attempted to conspire with Russia to engage in espionage against Clinton and had Flynn work with a go-between that the Trump admin thought was acting as a channel to Russia. The reason that didn't fall under specific conspiracy statutes is the person Flynn was working with was falsely representing his contacts with Russians to the Trump campaign. So, in that specific instance, they mistakenly thought they were committing crimes against the nation rather than committing them and that's not covered under the law. Stand up guy, that Flynn.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

It is kinda wild to watch someone who thinks the President is essentially a monarch when attempting to defend Trump's high crimes, but also thinks the President knowing which US citizen is bargaining transferring US nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia or is helping Russian government officials work around US sanctions is an unconscionable abuse of power. There's a whiplash in philosophy that.

President Obama should not be allowed to know what his intelligence agencies are seeing even in obviously justifiable circumstances like this, but when the conversation turns to Trump, we're a hair away from L’état, c’est moi. How come?

Of course, one of those Presidents is like those people who went to Howard, so it's not hard to understand where it comes from. Still, for consistency's sake, I'd like to know the articulable standard by which the President should not be allowed to unredact the name of a US citizen is when intelligence incepts a conversation between a unnamed US citizen and the Russian ambassador in which that citizen working to help Russia work around US sanctions. Why shouldn't the President not be allowed to know who the US citizen is? And how does that fit within broad defenses of Trump's powers invoking an extreme unitary executive theory that are used to shield him from accountability?

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20814
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I don’t know why I think this fits here:

“The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.”

Republicans - We can’t trust the government.

Also Republicans - Let’s take a look at your surfing history.

- Doc

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21852
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by moksha »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 7:50 pm
A Bill Clinton appointed judge and Howard alumni. No, nothing new here, just more partisanship.
But is it right for a corrupt Attorney General serving an amoral President to subvert justice without some judicial opposition?

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

[quote]I guess they'll have to invent the crime of perjury for withdrawing perjury guilty plea, which doezn't currently exist.[/quote]

You can't charge a person for perjury because they changed their plea. Fortunately, that's not what's going on here. If that's what Hannity told you, Hannity is lying to you. Instead, Flynn made a series of statements to the court that he's now repudiating. The call is to look into whether any of those would now constitute perjury. Flynn can argue that they are substantially related to his plea or he made them under duress, but what's going on is not what you are representing.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17960
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

Senator Burr is being targeted by the FBI for insider trading with his phone records seized yesterday. That seems likely appropriate given the public reporting, but it is odd that this was leaked by the DoJ the same day it happened and no one in Trump's circle is complaining about the leak. When it's an action they don't like, we see how differently they react to leaks. It's also odd that there's no reports of all the other pretty clear cases of possible insider trading that were reported around the same time. That includes the potentially more egregious Loeffler case, but also several more Republican Senators who are reported to have done what Burr did. I thought nothing was likely to come of it precisely because too many Republican Senators were implicated.

Burr has offered some modest resistance to Trump's attempts to pervert the intelligence community and modest pushback on downplaying or obscuring Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 election. At this stage, that makes him an outlier, and it's hard not to wonder if this fact explains the above facts. It's a wait and see situation, but we're also long past the point that the Trump admin should be given every benefit of the doubt when scrutinizing actions. Maybe there's a hidden fact pattern that makes Burr a more actionable target, but if you're saying to yourself, "It's probably fine" you're not betting on the frontrunner here.

Post Reply