Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[ducks]

Elections have consequences, you lost" Barack Obama 2009
Bernie had his shot at Trump stolen from him by Cackles Clinton and Debbie Washingmachine and yet he calls the GOP "grotesquely immoral"??
Under Obama the Democrats lost 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, the Oval Office and now the Supreme Court. They are on the verge of extinction and still lashing out at Trump. It's laughable

[TSA]

Flynn, for his part has dissembled on the subject.



"I promise I am not funded by a foreign government".

Okaaay.

It seems to be the common answer

"Lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department today acknowledging that its work years ago for a European nonprofit benefited the same Ukrainian political party once advised by Paul Manafort, who later ran Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

The filings, obtained by POLITICO, appear to clean up the firm’s requirement to disclose its role in foreign lobbying that Manafort reportedly orchestrated. The Podesta Group said it believed its client was an unaffiliated European think tank. But the new paperwork suggests the Justice Department has information tying the think tank to the pro-Russian Ukrainian Party of Regions — a possible source of continuing legal trouble for Manafort, because he never disclosed his own role in the lobbying campaign."

[TSA]

Flynn's lobbying efforts form one of the key facts in presenting that proof.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Be happy to stop and move on to the next point if you want to cede that Russians were getting their hooks into Flynn, if not there already.

Do Podesta's lobbying efforts on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukrainian think tank show proof of collusion with Russia? Were the Podesta's trying to hide something since they, like Mike Flynn, also filed retroactively as a foreign agent?

===========
Lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department today acknowledging that its work years ago for a European nonprofit benefited the same Ukrainian political party once advised by Paul Manafort, who later ran Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

The filings, obtained by POLITICO, appear to clean up the firm’s requirement to disclose its role in foreign lobbying that Manafort reportedly orchestrated. The Podesta Group said it believed its client was an unaffiliated European think tank. But the new paperwork suggests the Justice Department has information tying the think tank to the pro-Russian Ukrainian Party of Regions — a possible source of continuing legal trouble for Manafort, because he never disclosed his own role in the lobbying campaign.

While violating FARA is a criminal offense, the Justice Department typically seeks to resolve problems by bringing lobbyists into compliance rather than bringing charges. Last November, the Podesta Group updated its disclosures about lobbying work for India after contacts between its chairman, Tony Podesta, and his brother, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, surfaced in the latter’s hacked emails. More recently, Michael Flynn, Trump’s short-lived national security adviser, retroactively disclosed lobbying that benefited the government of Turkey after initially filing under the LDA instead of FARA.

[boutons_deux]

This is a Flynn, Trash, etc, thread.

If you want to deflect, habitually, to Podesta, then start a Podesta thread and convict him.

All you are saying in Flynn's defense is that he is as bad as Podesta. Typical rightwingnut "defense".

Hillary's emails!

Benghazi!

Baby eating!

[TSA]

This is a Flynn, Trash, etc, thread.

If you want to deflect, habitually, to Podesta, then start a Podesta thread and convict him.

All you are saying in Flynn's defense is that he is as bad as Podesta. Typical rightwingnut "defense".

Hillary's emails!

Benghazi!

Baby eating!

the king of off topic spam in the wrong thread wants to play forum cop

[TSA]

[Adam Lambert]

watching tsa lol at leftist conspiracy nut bags is like watching christians lol about how crazy and improbable other religions are

[TSA]

If true...... djohn2oo8

[Spurminator]

"Verified Public Facebook Post"

Must be true then. Who would have any reason to doubt Milo?

[TSA]

[TSA]

[TSA]

"Verified Public Facebook Post"

Must be true then. Who would have any reason to doubt Milo?

[spurraider21]

i'll play the TSA game

hmm, its pretty su ious that there are all these attacks trying to discredit Mensch just as she's digging deeper into Trump's scandals. That only means her conspiracy theories must be true.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Flynn, for his part has dissembled on the subject.



[Russian guy to gullible Flynn] "I promise I am not funded by a foreign government".

Okaaay.

[but Podesta]

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Flynn's lobbying efforts form one of the key facts in presenting that proof.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Be happy to stop and move on to the next point if you want to cede that Russians were getting their hooks into Flynn, if not there already.

Do Podesta's lobbying efforts...

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

[RandomGuy]

So I guess TSA can't or won't talk about Flynn's contacts, and whether they rise to any level of concern?

"but Podesta..."

"but Hillary..."

"but Obama..."

Deflect.
Doubt.
Dissemble.

[monosylab1k]

Except that the vast majority of liberals have been ignoring Mensch for months. She gets on with regularity by most left leaning media. Unlike the right who will suck up anything Kim Dotcom squeezes out of his teats. So once again, the left is not ing re ed like the right.

[monosylab1k]

You've been posting liberals tweets ting on her and exposing her.

[RandomGuy]

yeah, but thats easy.

flynn is a cheap hooker.

It is easy for you. Not so for TSA, it seems. Why do you think that is?

[RandomGuy]

Sagan makes a few suggestions about the "tools" a skeptic should keep ready in their Baloney Detection Kit. These are not merely measures to identify bad arguments, but constructive ideas about how to come up with better alternatives:

Seek independent confirmation of alleged facts.
Encourage an open debate about the issue and the available evidence.
"In science, there are no authorities. At most, there are experts."
Come up with a variety of competing hypotheses explaining a given outcome. Considering many different explanations will lower the risk of confirmation bias.
Don't get too attached to your own ideas, lest you get reluctant to reject them even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Quantify whenever possible, allowing for easier comparisons between hypotheses' relative explanatory power.
Every step in an argument must be logically sound; a single weak link can doom the entire chain.
When the evidence is inconclusive, use Occam's Razor to discriminate between hypotheses.
Pay attention to falsifiability. Science does not concern itself with unfalsifiable propositions.

[TSA]

Except that the vast majority of liberals have been ignoring Mensch for months. She gets on with regularity by most left leaning media. Unlike the right who will suck up anything Kim Dotcom squeezes out of his teats. So once again, the left is not ing re ed like the right.

Are you ing kidding? She's written op-eds in the NYT and other MSM outlets. Multiple Dem senators are retweeting her and Ed Markey actually cited her as a source

[monosylab1k]

Are you ing kidding? She's written op-eds in the NYT and other MSM outlets. Multiple Dem senators are retweeting her and Ed Markey actually cited her as a source

Prove it. Show links, be specific, otherwise you're full of . Everything I've seen dismisses her as a joke. And you just posted liberal tweets exposing her as a fraud.

[TSA]

So I guess TSA can't or won't talk about Flynn's contacts, and whether they rise to any level of concern?

"but Podesta..."

"but Hillary..."

"but Obama..."

Deflect.
Doubt.
Dissemble.

I asked you for proof of collusion and you brought up Flynn's lobbying. That isn't proof of collusion. And I only bring up Podesta's failure to disclose of lobbying for a pro-Russian think tank to show how absurd it is to use that as proof of Russian collusion.

[RandomGuy]

Attribution is very much an art, and one that necessitates an unfortunate amount of guesswork. The impossibility of conclusively attributing an attack to a specific actor – or, in some cases, even identifying specific actors – does not mean that we should not attempt to correlate the information about attacks with each other. But it is important to only state as truth what is known to be true; discarding inconvenient data as ‘anomalous’ in nature is not only counter-productive, but dangerous. It can lead to a “house of cards” effect: if the initial assumptions are flawed, then each layer built on them is undermined.

We can counteract this simply by communicating and sharing our analyses: as much as possible, as frequently and efficiently as possible. Guesswork and speculation should be accepted – but also challenged and qualified at every opportunity. The narrative that arises from this discourse will be richer, more nuanced and ultimately more valuable to the intelligence community. Only by cultivating accountability can we replace black-box reporting with informed, critical analysis.

https://www.secalliance.com/blog/the...ity-community/

Its a good article, and makes a very good point.

[RandomGuy]

I asked you for proof of collusion and you brought up Flynn's lobbying. That isn't proof of collusion. And I only bring up Podesta's failure to disclose of lobbying for a pro-Russian think tank to show how absurd it is to use that as proof of Russian collusion.

You haven't allowed me to finish making my case. I can't show you anything resembling proof, or even a good argument, if some things can't be established.

Flynn advocated for several things for Turkey, after taking money he thought was from Turkey, but appears to have been solely Russian in origin.

Fact or no?