Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Farmer77

Russia probes kick into high gear

6,268 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tiggs
21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Really?   You are fairly sure he knows the drill?  Then why didn't he have a lawyer with him since that is rule # 1 when being interrogated by the FBI so I am fairly sure, based on the fact that he had no legal representation and subsequently got himself accused of lying to an FBI agent, that he did not know the drill or simply screwed up.  What say you?  I am also fairly sure that he now does in fact know the drill and wil never speak to the FBI again without a lawyer present. 

So you believe that the ex-Assistant Director of National Intelligence is either incompetent or ignorant of how FBI interviews work?

How about a third option -- where he doesn't arrange or ask for a lawyer, because he doesn't want the FBI to think he's got anything to hide.

As Flynn's Statement of Offences filed with the court confirms -- the interview was voluntary. He was free to either postpone the interview, ask for a lawyer to be present or stop answering their questions, at any time.
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I already explained what happened, that you refuse to accept it is nothing new given you still believe collusion occurred. 

You summarized a report by Sara Carter, based on a single anonymous source.

What doesn't fit with that particular "gotcha" narrative, is that both FBI agents went away believing that Flynn had simply misremembered the details of the call.

It wasn't until later, during the Mueller investigation, that the details of that interview was revisited.

What does fit with that "gotcha" narrative, however, is a marked upsurge in recent attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation.
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Since the mid 18th century and never used to prosecute anyone, what of it?

It's still on the books.
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Never said he did, I said he that Obama stated he had no problem with Trump's transition team speaking to the Russians after he won the election.  

I'll let James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, take that one.

"That’s absurd. That’s absolutely absurd. There was great concern at the time, not just with this particular contact, but with the violation of the principle that historically been followed of one president, one administration at a time."
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

So Flynn's name wasn't or it was masked and she had it unmasked?

Flynn's name wasn't masked on the original intelligence report she received.
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You also still suspect Trump of colluding with the Russians so please forgive me is I don't put a lot of faith in your bheliefs

I'm definitely leaning in that direction after recent events, but I still don't see a smoking gun in the public domain.

Regardless -- I don't see how it's possible to be certain that there was no collusion before Mueller's investigation has concluded.
 

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I merely stated what happened and a probable reason for his "lying" and I'll remind you that it was not directed at you. 

If you don't want people to respond to your posts -- don't post them in a discussion forum.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I haven't listened yet but right off the bat in reading McCarthy says :

To claim there isn't cause to investigate a possible crime is just wrong.  The president fired a man for investigating his friend when the president knew his friend was guilty of the crime he was being investigated for. The FBI also knew that the president knew. Can you really say that under those circumstances an investigation isn't warranted?

That in and of itself is enough cause to open an investigation. Throw in Sessions lying to congress and Kushner et al lying on their security clearance paperwork and the need for the authorities to ensure the stability and security of our government really becomes clear. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

This is simply just wrong. A prosecutor is assigned when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, to investigate and determine if indictments are appropriate.

In the case of Trump and Russia, there is a mountain of suspicious activities that occurred and substantial appearances of an attempted cover up. Clearly a prosecutor is warranted in this case. Especially so because if involves the President.

 

Futhermore, imagine if Hillary had won and this scandal was revolving around her instead of Trump with the exact same circumstances and evidence. The people right now who are calling this a big nothing burger witch hunt would be completely on the other side calling for her impeachment or worse. The hypocrisy is truly mind blowing.

Maybe try listening to the interview instead of the sound-byte? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 

Maybe try listening to the interview instead of the sound-byte? 

Ok I'll get to it but the Browns just fired their GM so I'm glued to local radio for reaction :blink: 

I didn't listen because reading that paragraph right off the bat seems to kinda kill the dude's credibility. I understand arguing that they are innocent, I cant understand arguing that they look innocent.  But if you say its worth it ill check it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
21 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Ok I'll get to it but the Browns just fired their GM so I'm glued to local radio for reaction :blink: 

I didn't listen because reading that paragraph right off the bat seems to kinda kill the dude's credibility. I understand arguing that they are innocent, I cant understand arguing that they look innocent.  But if you say its worth it ill check it out. 

If it's worth it is up to you.  For instance I don't for one second expect anything to ever sway Einstinium.

From Wikipedia

Quote

Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is a columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2][3][4] A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If it's worth it is up to you.  For instance I don't for one second expect anything to ever sway Einstinium.

From Wikipedia

 

Only one thing will sway me, facts. Not some persons opinion. You can find dozens of opinions from other legal experts that run counter to that one experts opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
5 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

Only one thing will sway me, facts. Not some persons opinion. You can find dozens of opinions from other legal experts that run counter to that one experts opinion.

That sounds strangely like the anti global climate change crowd.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
1 minute ago, Michelle said:

That sounds strangely like the anti global climate change crowd.

I think it is the same crowd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
48 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If it's worth it is up to you.  For instance I don't for one second expect anything to ever sway Einstinium.

From Wikipedia

 

It has become laughable.    I gave up and will wait till the farce has completely collapsed before asking him again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
Just now, Merc14 said:

It has become laughable.    I gave up and will wait till the farce has completely collapsed before asking him again.

Time will tell if you are right Merc, but as you know I think you are flat out wrong and the farce is the Trump presidency, not those who realize something is not on the up and up with Trump and his administration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

Only one thing will sway me, facts. Not some persons opinion. You can find dozens of opinions from other legal experts that run counter to that one experts opinion.

You should find one as qualified and post it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

I think it is the same crowd!

She meant you. :tu:

Sorry not trying to insult you too much just having fun.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Another Mueller investigator's Democratic ties raise new bias questions

Quote

Yet another member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigative team is facing questions over potential bias after it emerged that she used to represent ex-Obama aide Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation.

Jeannie Rhee is a former partner at WilmerHale—the high-profile law firm where Mueller worked prior to taking on the special counsel role. She is one of at least three attorneys who followed Mueller from WilmerHale.

Source

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

Another Mueller investigator's Democratic ties raise new bias questions

Source

Here's a silly thing, but what does it matter if the investigators are biased or not?  As long as the judge and jury are non-biased then who cares how the investigators feel.  If we eliminate people from investigating because of bias, then it pretty much shuts down any congressional investigation.  Because Republicans are totally neutral when it comes to Clinton and Democrats are neutral when it comes to Trump. <sarcasm> 

I would be more worried if they were friends of the investigatee rather than enemies. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

When a lead investigator (Strzok) texts hate filled content to their paramour, when Mueller chooses an attorney (Rhee) who defended the Clintons, when Mueller's chief attorney (Weissman) sings the praises of someone (Yates)  who refused an Executive order (that the Supreme Court upheld)...then I'd say it's pretty darn reasonable to raise the question of bias. Flip the script and suppose it was a Democrat being 'investigated' by Republicans who had engaged in such actions...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
50 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I would be more worried if they were friends of the investigatee rather than enemies. 

I remember reading that in ancient Israel, the Sanhedrin could not convict a person if everyone who heard the case voted to convict.  The idea was that if not a single individual was sympathetic to the defendant, justice could not be obtained.  Unfortunately, we don't live by that standard today.  Herr Mueller's posse is intent on a lynching and it needs to be put paid to.  It has been undoubtedly demonstrated now that he has created a whole team of anti-Trump investigators and their "evidence" should be taken with a ton or two of salt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
16 hours ago, Astra. said:

Hmm, all I see in Mr Mueller is a VERY determined and 'no nonsense' man who's aim is to leave NO stone unturned as this investigation heats up. Put it this way, I certainly wouldn't want him on my tail if I was trying to hide something. It's no wonder the Trump supporters are shakin! in their boots. What they needed was a Mueller-style investigation into Hillary as well. I bet the outcome would have been a lot different.

images_82.jpg

Go Mueller :tu:..

 

I have my doubts about the man. Some individuals, on his investigative team, are Hillary supporters and sycophants. I don't have much confidence in their objectivity. It's as if Sean Hannity was on a task force investigating Obama.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Here's a silly thing, but what does it matter if the investigators are biased or not?  As long as the judge and jury are non-biased then who cares how the investigators feel.  If we eliminate people from investigating because of bias, then it pretty much shuts down any congressional investigation.  Because Republicans are totally neutral when it comes to Clinton and Democrats are neutral when it comes to Trump. <sarcasm> 

I would be more worried if they were friends of the investigatee rather than enemies. 

How about the Duke Lacrosse team prosecution as an example of an out of control prosecutor?  Go take a look and maybe answer your own question.  Seriously, go do it and really do some reading and come back and explain why a prosecutor with built in biases and an agenda is one of the most dangerous things in our legal system.  After you do that come back and look at this and realize that a Special Prosecutor is twice as powerful and any DA.  

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
23 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

.... It's as if Sean Hannity was on a task force investigating Obama.

Exactly, good example there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
38 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I have my doubts about the man. Some individuals, on his investigative team, are Hillary supporters and sycophants. I don't have much confidence in their objectivity. It's as if Sean Hannity was on a task force investigating Obama.

Who knows Para, you could be well right. This whole Russian / Trump collusion could turn out to be a big fat nothing burger. But since  Michael Flynn came under the spotlight. They obviously thought that further investigation was warranted. Either way, time will eventually tell if Mueller does / or does not have something more solid up his sleeve.  After all, isn't that what investigations are about ? 

 

Edited by Astra.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
2 hours ago, Lilly said:

When a lead investigator (Strzok) texts hate filled content to their paramour, when Mueller chooses an attorney (Rhee) who defended the Clintons, when Mueller's chief attorney (Weissman) sings the praises of someone (Yates)  who refused an Executive order (that the Supreme Court upheld)...

So -- they're pretty run-of-the-mill Democrats, then.
 

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

 Flip the script and suppose it was a Democrat being 'investigated' by Republicans who had engaged in such actions...

Weren't people outraged earlier in this thread that Strzok, a Democrat, was involved in the Clinton case?

So -- if Democrats can't investigate Democrats, and Democrats can't investigate Republicans....

...And If Republicans can't investigate Republicans, and Republicans can't investigate Democrats....

...then there ain't going to be a lot of investigations being done.

And THAT is exactly the aim of the people digging up who's a Democrat on Mueller's team.

They're trying to derail the Mueller investigation at all costs.


Truth is that the members of the Special Counsel's team can be either Democrats or Republicans. Same as the makeup of any other investigative team throughout modern US history.

What they can't do, is allow their political viewpoint to effect the investigation.

And that's what you'll need to show has happened, in order to demonstrate that bias has occurred.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Judge recuses in Michael Flynn case

The former Trump national security adviser will be sentenced by Clinton appointee Emmet Sullivan.

Quote

President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, will face a different judge to be sentenced than the one who took Flynn’s guilty plea to a felony false statement charge last week, court records show.

Politico

Just another "random" coincidence.

Edited by .ZZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Rep Jim Jordan grills FBI director.

[7:28] but no need to watch the whole thing, Jordon gets right to his point.

Quote

Rep. Jim Jordan asks FBI director Christopher Wray whether Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired by the Mueller investigation for sending "anti-Trump text messages," was involved with getting a warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

 

Edited by .ZZ.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

Ok here are the facts:

Trump was president elect when he ordered obstruction of justice.

(Not that he's implied anyway)

But...

Case closed.

Impeach.

Awesome... Get it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

And I don't want to hear about his Sally Yates bimbo.. she was fired because she wouldn't follow thru with the muslim travel ban.. which has recently been overturned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

For. Two reasons... Get over it.. Russia and Israel our our friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Zamor