1. #47951
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Why have Trash, his mafiya, "forgotten", lied, obstructed for YEARS the Russian investigation?

    Why is Trash/Julie Annie/Nunes/etc pushing Ukraine as the 2016 election meddler? To exonerate/hide their friend and puppet master Pootin?
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-05-2019 at 11:50 AM.

  2. #47952
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    How can you know what the Mueller report says without reading it?

  3. #47953
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    Here is, for the record the earliest take on the whole thing a few months after the thread started about page 100 or so.

    I was 100% right about the obstruction of justice, as well as collusion.


    1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

    2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] [b]involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

    3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

    4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

    5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

    6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

    7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

  4. #47954
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Why have Trash, his mafiya, "forgotten", lied, obstructed for YEARS the Russian investigation?

    Why is Trash/Julie Annie/Nunes/etc pushing Ukraine as the 2016 election meddler? To exonerate/hide their friend and puppet master Pootin?

    Why are Repugs refusing to finance upgrading voting systems? (they Pootin helps Repugs and 3rd parties, hurts Dems)



  5. #47955
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    The Michael Flynn smoking gun: FBI headquarters altered interview summary



    As a self-proclaimed adherent to Hanlon’s Razor, I once cynically viewed the frenzied focus on FBI actions during the 2016 Russian election-meddling investigation as partisan and overwrought. Hanlon’s Razor suggests that we never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. Having proudly served in the FBI for 25 years, I bristled at insulting accusations of an onerous deep state conspiracy. Some obvious mistakes made during the investigation of the Trump campaign were quite possibly the result of two ham-handedly overzealous FBI headquarters denizens, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, clumsily seeking to impress each other with ever-increasing levels of loathing for then-candidate Donald Trump.

    FBI employees are en led to their own political views. But senior-level decision-makers who express them on government devices, while overseeing a supremely consequential investigation into a political campaign, simply do not possess the requisite judgment and temperament for the job.

    Their stunning text message exchanges and talk of an onerous “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to win prove how ill-suited they were for their positions in James Comey’s cabinet. What other steps might they have taken that have yet to be discovered? The inspector general is soon set to release a report into FBI actions in the effort to surveil the Trump campaign. Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department is conducting its own review, and U.S. Attorney John Durham recently expanded his investigation into the case as well, by converting the review into a full-blown criminal investigation. Barr has faced backlash from critics of his investigation, who ironically have referred to it as a witch hunt.

    But as we anxiously await the expected reports, there recently appeared some fairly explosive allegations into potential investigator misconduct that have not received the attention they deserve. With her filing of a blistering Motion to Compel against federal prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case just made public, Sidney Powell has upended my adherence to Hanlon’s Razor. Powell is the attorney for former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Flynn, who pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents during the special counsel investigation. Powell’s motion seeks to unravel a case many feel was biased from its inception.

    One of the most damning charges contained within Powell’s 37-page court brief is that Page, the DOJ lawyer assigned to the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, may have materially altered Flynn’s interview FD-302, which was drafted by Strzok. FBI agents transfer handwritten interview notes onto a formal testimonial do ent, FD-302, within five days of conducting an interview, while recollections are still fresh.

    It is unheard of for someone not actually on the interview itself to materially alter an FD-302. As an FBI agent, no one in my chain of command ever directed me to alter consequential wording. And as a longtime FBI supervisor, I never ever directed an agent to recollect something different from what they discerned during an interview. Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate. This occurs before the do ent is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes which are safely secured inside a 1-A envelope, and secured as part of evidence at trial.

    With this in mind, this related text message exchange from Strzok to Page dated Feb. 10, 2017, nauseated me:
    "I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you."

    Powell charges that Page directed Strzok to alter his Flynn interview 302. As in most instances in life, words matter. The change in wording was instrumental in moving Flynn from a target to a subject. One recalls how critical wording was in the FBI’s decision not to argue that DOJ charge Hillary Clinton with a crime in the private email server investigation. Comey elected not to use “gross negligence” to characterize Clinton's actions — which would have been the required language in the mishandling of classified information statute — and instead settled upon the more benign and non-indictable “extreme carelessness."

    Later, it was determined that none other than Strzok was the impetus behind the recrafting of Comey’s words.

    Powell’s motion requests that Flynn’s case be dismissed. Central to this appeal are details surrounding Flynn’s first interview by the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017. Recall also how Comey famously told NBC’s Nicolle Wallace, in front of an audience, that Flynn was visited by FBI agents at the White House in chaotic early days of Trump transition because, in Comey’s words, “I sent them.”

    Comey received warm laughter for his quip from an appreciative audience, reveled in the adulation, and further elaborated, providing this shockingly partisan move:
    "Something we've — I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years. And in both those administrations there was process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and it would be there. And I thought, it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over. And so, we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we're sending a couple of guys over. Hope you'll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room in the Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to."

    So, did an accomplished 3-star general actually misrepresent the truth? Or, was his recollection of events later spun to be a mendacious accounting by overzealous investigators who followed their boss’s lead, while cir venting established protocol in an ambush-style interview? What apparently followed was a “tweaking” of the accounting to ensure Flynn be charged with le 18 USC § 1001 – something I have long argued was never charged by any U.S. Attorney’s Office during my time serving in the FBI unless we wanted to threaten it and employ as leverage.

    Setting aside valid arguments that the FBI acted inappropriately — treating the Trump White House differently than they would have treated Bush’s or Obama’s, as the hubristic Comey proudly admits — Powell’s charges of egregious government misconduct are certainly deserving of the court’s consideration. The withholding of clearly exculpatory material related to revelations that “important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302” may well be central to the findings of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Durham, as well.

    Here’s me, acknowledging my mistake. I was dead wrong. It now seems there was a concerted effort, though isolated, within the upper-echelons of the FBI to influence the outcome of the Flynn investigation. By “dirtying up” Flynn, Comey’s FBI headquarters team of callow sycophants shortcut the investigative process. Arm-twisting Flynn through the “tweaked” version of his interview afforded him criminal exposure. The sure Comey team felt supremely confident that would inspire him “flipping” and give them the desperately sought-after evidence of Trump-Russia collusion that the wholly unverified Steele dossier was never remotely capable of providing.

    I am physically nauseous as I type these words. I have long maintained that innocent mistakes were made and that the investigators at the center of this maelstrom were en led to the benefit of the doubt.

    No more.

    They have tarnished the badge and forever stained an agency that deserved so much better from them. I am ashamed. The irreparable damage Comey’s team has done to the FBI will take a generation to reverse.

    I ashamedly join Hanlon’s Razor in getting this one wrong.

    James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...erview-summary

  6. #47956
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,877
    Lol. boom! ^

  7. #47957
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    The Michael Flynn smoking gun: FBI headquarters altered interview summary



    As a self-proclaimed adherent to Hanlon’s Razor, I once cynically viewed the frenzied focus on FBI actions during the 2016 Russian election-meddling investigation as partisan and overwrought. Hanlon’s Razor suggests that we never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. Having proudly served in the FBI for 25 years, I bristled at insulting accusations of an onerous deep state conspiracy. Some obvious mistakes made during the investigation of the Trump campaign were quite possibly the result of two ham-handedly overzealous FBI headquarters denizens, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, clumsily seeking to impress each other with ever-increasing levels of loathing for then-candidate Donald Trump.

    FBI employees are en led to their own political views. But senior-level decision-makers who express them on government devices, while overseeing a supremely consequential investigation into a political campaign, simply do not possess the requisite judgment and temperament for the job.

    Their stunning text message exchanges and talk of an onerous “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to win prove how ill-suited they were for their positions in James Comey’s cabinet. What other steps might they have taken that have yet to be discovered? The inspector general is soon set to release a report into FBI actions in the effort to surveil the Trump campaign. Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department is conducting its own review, and U.S. Attorney John Durham recently expanded his investigation into the case as well, by converting the review into a full-blown criminal investigation. Barr has faced backlash from critics of his investigation, who ironically have referred to it as a witch hunt.

    But as we anxiously await the expected reports, there recently appeared some fairly explosive allegations into potential investigator misconduct that have not received the attention they deserve. With her filing of a blistering Motion to Compel against federal prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case just made public, Sidney Powell has upended my adherence to Hanlon’s Razor. Powell is the attorney for former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Flynn, who pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents during the special counsel investigation. Powell’s motion seeks to unravel a case many feel was biased from its inception.

    One of the most damning charges contained within Powell’s 37-page court brief is that Page, the DOJ lawyer assigned to the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, may have materially altered Flynn’s interview FD-302, which was drafted by Strzok. FBI agents transfer handwritten interview notes onto a formal testimonial do ent, FD-302, within five days of conducting an interview, while recollections are still fresh.

    It is unheard of for someone not actually on the interview itself to materially alter an FD-302. As an FBI agent, no one in my chain of command ever directed me to alter consequential wording. And as a longtime FBI supervisor, I never ever directed an agent to recollect something different from what they discerned during an interview. Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate. This occurs before the do ent is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes which are safely secured inside a 1-A envelope, and secured as part of evidence at trial.

    With this in mind, this related text message exchange from Strzok to Page dated Feb. 10, 2017, nauseated me:
    "I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you."

    Powell charges that Page directed Strzok to alter his Flynn interview 302. As in most instances in life, words matter. The change in wording was instrumental in moving Flynn from a target to a subject. One recalls how critical wording was in the FBI’s decision not to argue that DOJ charge Hillary Clinton with a crime in the private email server investigation. Comey elected not to use “gross negligence” to characterize Clinton's actions — which would have been the required language in the mishandling of classified information statute — and instead settled upon the more benign and non-indictable “extreme carelessness."

    Later, it was determined that none other than Strzok was the impetus behind the recrafting of Comey’s words.

    Powell’s motion requests that Flynn’s case be dismissed. Central to this appeal are details surrounding Flynn’s first interview by the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017. Recall also how Comey famously told NBC’s Nicolle Wallace, in front of an audience, that Flynn was visited by FBI agents at the White House in chaotic early days of Trump transition because, in Comey’s words, “I sent them.”

    Comey received warm laughter for his quip from an appreciative audience, reveled in the adulation, and further elaborated, providing this shockingly partisan move:
    "Something we've — I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years. And in both those administrations there was process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and it would be there. And I thought, it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over. And so, we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we're sending a couple of guys over. Hope you'll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room in the Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to."

    So, did an accomplished 3-star general actually misrepresent the truth? Or, was his recollection of events later spun to be a mendacious accounting by overzealous investigators who followed their boss’s lead, while cir venting established protocol in an ambush-style interview? What apparently followed was a “tweaking” of the accounting to ensure Flynn be charged with le 18 USC § 1001 – something I have long argued was never charged by any U.S. Attorney’s Office during my time serving in the FBI unless we wanted to threaten it and employ as leverage.

    Setting aside valid arguments that the FBI acted inappropriately — treating the Trump White House differently than they would have treated Bush’s or Obama’s, as the hubristic Comey proudly admits — Powell’s charges of egregious government misconduct are certainly deserving of the court’s consideration. The withholding of clearly exculpatory material related to revelations that “important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302” may well be central to the findings of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Durham, as well.

    Here’s me, acknowledging my mistake. I was dead wrong. It now seems there was a concerted effort, though isolated, within the upper-echelons of the FBI to influence the outcome of the Flynn investigation. By “dirtying up” Flynn, Comey’s FBI headquarters team of callow sycophants shortcut the investigative process. Arm-twisting Flynn through the “tweaked” version of his interview afforded him criminal exposure. The sure Comey team felt supremely confident that would inspire him “flipping” and give them the desperately sought-after evidence of Trump-Russia collusion that the wholly unverified Steele dossier was never remotely capable of providing.

    I am physically nauseous as I type these words. I have long maintained that innocent mistakes were made and that the investigators at the center of this maelstrom were en led to the benefit of the doubt.

    No more.

    They have tarnished the badge and forever stained an agency that deserved so much better from them. I am ashamed. The irreparable damage Comey’s team has done to the FBI will take a generation to reverse.

    I ashamedly join Hanlon’s Razor in getting this one wrong.

    James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...erview-summary
    Then why did Flynn lie about lying twice in federal court?

    Explain.

  8. #47958
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    6,573
    Resident commies never learn, tbh. Thought this thread would be dead after mueller time

  9. #47959
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    Resident commies never learn, tbh. Thought this thread would be dead after mueller time
    I hope it never dies it’s too much fun


  10. #47960
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Jusf need a Mueller coloring book, a safe space, and we jet set.

  11. #47961
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    The Michael Flynn smoking gun: FBI headquarters altered interview summary



    As a self-proclaimed adherent to Hanlon’s Razor, I once cynically viewed the frenzied focus on FBI actions during the 2016 Russian election-meddling investigation as partisan and overwrought. Hanlon’s Razor suggests that we never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. Having proudly served in the FBI for 25 years, I bristled at insulting accusations of an onerous deep state conspiracy. Some obvious mistakes made during the investigation of the Trump campaign were quite possibly the result of two ham-handedly overzealous FBI headquarters denizens, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, clumsily seeking to impress each other with ever-increasing levels of loathing for then-candidate Donald Trump.

    FBI employees are en led to their own political views. But senior-level decision-makers who express them on government devices, while overseeing a supremely consequential investigation into a political campaign, simply do not possess the requisite judgment and temperament for the job.

    Their stunning text message exchanges and talk of an onerous “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to win prove how ill-suited they were for their positions in James Comey’s cabinet. What other steps might they have taken that have yet to be discovered? The inspector general is soon set to release a report into FBI actions in the effort to surveil the Trump campaign. Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department is conducting its own review, and U.S. Attorney John Durham recently expanded his investigation into the case as well, by converting the review into a full-blown criminal investigation. Barr has faced backlash from critics of his investigation, who ironically have referred to it as a witch hunt.

    But as we anxiously await the expected reports, there recently appeared some fairly explosive allegations into potential investigator misconduct that have not received the attention they deserve. With her filing of a blistering Motion to Compel against federal prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case just made public, Sidney Powell has upended my adherence to Hanlon’s Razor. Powell is the attorney for former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Flynn, who pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents during the special counsel investigation. Powell’s motion seeks to unravel a case many feel was biased from its inception.

    One of the most damning charges contained within Powell’s 37-page court brief is that Page, the DOJ lawyer assigned to the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, may have materially altered Flynn’s interview FD-302, which was drafted by Strzok. FBI agents transfer handwritten interview notes onto a formal testimonial do ent, FD-302, within five days of conducting an interview, while recollections are still fresh.

    It is unheard of for someone not actually on the interview itself to materially alter an FD-302. As an FBI agent, no one in my chain of command ever directed me to alter consequential wording. And as a longtime FBI supervisor, I never ever directed an agent to recollect something different from what they discerned during an interview. Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate. This occurs before the do ent is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes which are safely secured inside a 1-A envelope, and secured as part of evidence at trial.

    With this in mind, this related text message exchange from Strzok to Page dated Feb. 10, 2017, nauseated me:
    "I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you."

    Powell charges that Page directed Strzok to alter his Flynn interview 302. As in most instances in life, words matter. The change in wording was instrumental in moving Flynn from a target to a subject. One recalls how critical wording was in the FBI’s decision not to argue that DOJ charge Hillary Clinton with a crime in the private email server investigation. Comey elected not to use “gross negligence” to characterize Clinton's actions — which would have been the required language in the mishandling of classified information statute — and instead settled upon the more benign and non-indictable “extreme carelessness."

    Later, it was determined that none other than Strzok was the impetus behind the recrafting of Comey’s words.

    Powell’s motion requests that Flynn’s case be dismissed. Central to this appeal are details surrounding Flynn’s first interview by the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017. Recall also how Comey famously told NBC’s Nicolle Wallace, in front of an audience, that Flynn was visited by FBI agents at the White House in chaotic early days of Trump transition because, in Comey’s words, “I sent them.”

    Comey received warm laughter for his quip from an appreciative audience, reveled in the adulation, and further elaborated, providing this shockingly partisan move:
    "Something we've — I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years. And in both those administrations there was process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and it would be there. And I thought, it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over. And so, we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we're sending a couple of guys over. Hope you'll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room in the Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to."

    So, did an accomplished 3-star general actually misrepresent the truth? Or, was his recollection of events later spun to be a mendacious accounting by overzealous investigators who followed their boss’s lead, while cir venting established protocol in an ambush-style interview? What apparently followed was a “tweaking” of the accounting to ensure Flynn be charged with le 18 USC § 1001 – something I have long argued was never charged by any U.S. Attorney’s Office during my time serving in the FBI unless we wanted to threaten it and employ as leverage.

    Setting aside valid arguments that the FBI acted inappropriately — treating the Trump White House differently than they would have treated Bush’s or Obama’s, as the hubristic Comey proudly admits — Powell’s charges of egregious government misconduct are certainly deserving of the court’s consideration. The withholding of clearly exculpatory material related to revelations that “important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302” may well be central to the findings of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Durham, as well.

    Here’s me, acknowledging my mistake. I was dead wrong. It now seems there was a concerted effort, though isolated, within the upper-echelons of the FBI to influence the outcome of the Flynn investigation. By “dirtying up” Flynn, Comey’s FBI headquarters team of callow sycophants shortcut the investigative process. Arm-twisting Flynn through the “tweaked” version of his interview afforded him criminal exposure. The sure Comey team felt supremely confident that would inspire him “flipping” and give them the desperately sought-after evidence of Trump-Russia collusion that the wholly unverified Steele dossier was never remotely capable of providing.

    I am physically nauseous as I type these words. I have long maintained that innocent mistakes were made and that the investigators at the center of this maelstrom were en led to the benefit of the doubt.

    No more.

    They have tarnished the badge and forever stained an agency that deserved so much better from them. I am ashamed. The irreparable damage Comey’s team has done to the FBI will take a generation to reverse.

    I ashamedly join Hanlon’s Razor in getting this one wrong.

    James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...erview-summary
    Didn’t know Flynn waived any requests for further discovery as part of his guilty plea. That really sucks for him and his new lawyer.

  12. #47962
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Top Civil Rights Lawyers Warn Mark Zuckerberg of Potential Criminal Liability in Scathing Open Letter




    In a letter aimed at gutting Facebook’s rationale for allowing misleading and dishonest political ads across its platform,

    a prominent civil rights organization on Tuesday issued a stern warning to Mark Zuckerberg,

    outlining a number of federal laws to which, the group claims, Facebook may theoretically be held to account.

    Facebook is exposing itself to liability under various federal and state-level statutes,

    including those aimed at promoting voting rights,

    protecting consumers from unethical business practices, and

    preventing racial and religious discrimination.

    “We know that your decision to allow unchecked false statements by politicians will increase voter and census disinformation campaigns and increase activity exposing Africans Americans and other people of color to harm.”
    “The Communications Decency Act will not save you,”

    . “When a hate group uses events pages

    to target religious minorities,

    a conspiracy theory goes viral, or

    a hostile actor engages in voter suppression,

    Facebook profits from the ads running alongside such content,”


    42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981):

    “Facebook may be liable, possibly criminally, if it helps bad actors engage in voter suppression on the platform.

    Facebook often embeds its employees with large political campaigns to help them optimize their advertising.

    Facebook could be liable if it helps these campaigns distribute suppressive ads,”

    Facebook could be held liable, she said,

    if the company “delivers ads to people of color that are harmful or valueless,

    such as false statements designed to deceptively suppress voting or census participation.”

    It may also be held liable under the same law if it “knows of a conspiracy to interfere with voting rights, has the ability to prevent it,”

    https://gizmodo.com/top-civil-rights...ent-1839637024

  13. #47963
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672


    1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

    2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] [b]involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

    3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

    4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

    5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

    6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

    7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...Cherry-Picking

    Cherry Picking
    (also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

    Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

    Logical Form:

    Evidence A and evidence B is available.

    Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.

    Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2.

    Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.
    Paul Manafort served on the Trump Campaign, including a period as campaign chairman, from March to August 2016. Manafort had connections to Russia through his prior work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and later through his work for a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine. Manafort stayed in touch with these contacts during the campaign period through Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort employee who previously ran Manafort’s office in Kiev and who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tml#g-page-139

    Dishonest to the last. Sophist.

  14. #47964
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Resident commies never learn, tbh. Thought this thread would be dead after mueller time
    I would be wiling to bet you haven't read that report either.

  15. #47965
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672


    ... Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate. This occurs before the do ent is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes which are safely secured inside a 1-A envelope, and secured as part of evidence at trial.

    With this in mind, this related text message exchange from Strzok to Page dated Feb. 10, 2017, nauseated me:
    "I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you."

    ...

    Comey received warm laughter for his quip from an appreciative audience, reveled in the adulation, and further elaborated, providing this shockingly partisan move:
    "Something we've — I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol, two men that all of us perhaps have increased appreciation for over the last two years. And in both those administrations there was process. And so, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House Counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and it would be there. And I thought, it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over. And so, we placed a call to Flynn, said, hey, we're sending a couple of guys over. Hope you'll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room in the Situation Room, and he lied to them. And that’s what he’s now pled guilty to."

    James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...erview-summary
    No specifics as to what the "edits" are are given here, and the author acknowledges that proof-reading is routine, as one would expect.

    So the smoking gun is, essentially, that the report was proof-read, and that the Trump administration was disorganized and incompetent in allowing their guy to be interviewed by the FBI without vetting by the White House counsel.

    BFD.

    The judge in this case is already not happy with Flynn, and if those "edits" turn out to actually be corrections of typos... you are going to have another pizzagate argle bargle on your hands.

    Why don't you try claiming "no quid pro quo" for an encore.

  16. #47966
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    6,573
    I would be wiling to bet you haven't read that report either.
    I'd be willing to bet you waste far too much time hating somebody who isn't going to be taken out of office

  17. #47967
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'd be willing to bet you waste far too much time hating somebody who isn't going to be taken out of office
    Feel free to define the "correct amount of time".

    If you really still feel like betting, though, the odds of impeachment stand about at 81% at this point, with the odds of removal at about 24%. Odds of winning the 2020 election about 28%

    Feel free to put your money on one of those outcomes.

  18. #47968
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    6,573
    Feel free to define the "correct amount of time".

    If you really still feel like betting, though, the odds of impeachment stand about at 81% at this point, with the odds of removal at about 24%. Odds of winning the 2020 election about 28%

    Feel free to put your money on one of those outcomes.
    I mean you, Johnny and dumpster have been circle jerking this thread for what? 2 years? Probably 1.5k posts between you 3 dimwits here alone.

    I'm just sayin, trump aint going to jail, he's finishing his term and probably will get another. Once that happens you'll just be posting whatever bad tweet or article you can find about him daily to cope with the fact you are never getting the promised "Mueller time" you thought you'd get.

    Kind of pathetic, tbh. But don't let me ruin your party, another 1k posts until 2020 election and you can probably slap another 3-4k on when he likely wins.

    And if he doesn't? Big deal, life goes on and you'll probably start sucking Warren or Biden's balloon knot for 4 years.

  19. #47969
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,014
    I mean you, Johnny and dumpster have been circle jerking this thread for what? 2 years? Probably 1.5k posts between you 3 dimwits here alone.

    I'm just sayin, trump aint going to jail, he's finishing his term and probably will get another. Once that happens you'll just be posting whatever bad tweet or article you can find about him daily to cope with the fact you are never getting the promised "Mueller time" you thought you'd get.

    Kind of pathetic, tbh. But don't let me ruin your party, another 1k posts until 2020 election and you can probably slap another 3-4k on when he likely wins.

    And if he doesn't? Big deal, life goes on and you'll probably start sucking Warren or Biden's balloon knot for 4 years.
    you undershot it quite a bit tbh


  20. #47970
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    6,573
    you undershot it quite a bit tbh

    I was relating pages to posts for some reason. Oh well, nose on with Johnny and dump though

  21. #47971
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,014
    I was relating pages to posts for some reason. Oh well, nose on with Johnny and dump though
    i mean you can basically divide djohn's content by 3 or 4, since he would just post 4 separate tweets saying the same thing linking to the same article, but from different tweeters

  22. #47972
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    6,573
    i mean you can basically divide djohn's content by 3 or 4, since he would just post 4 separate tweets saying the same thing linking to the same article, but from different tweeters
    Johnny should be doing overtime here since he's not waxing his nub over the rockets atm. Seems to be his safe space

  23. #47973
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    ‘The truth looked bad for Donald Trump’:

    Here are 5 stunning moments from the first day of Roger Stone’s trial


    1. Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Zelinsky said in his opening statement:

    “Evidence will show Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad.

    The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.”

    2. Stone’s own lawyer does not paint a pretty picture of his own client.

    3. “To save Trump’s ass.”

    4. “Tell [Mueller] to go himself.”

    5. Zelinsky’s story strongly suggests that Trump lied to Mueller.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/the-truth-looked-bad-for-donald-trump-here-are-5-stunning-moments-from-the-first-day-of-roger-stones-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2914

    Prosecutor Z is from Barr's corrupt DoJ!



  24. #47974
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Roger Stone in serious trouble as prosecutors play jury audio of him allegedly lying to Congress

    prosecutors showed particularly damning evidence in the latest day of the trial: audio clips of Stone allegedly lying to Congress.

    Among the tapes were Stone telling Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) he only communicated with his intermediary with WikiLeaks “Over the phone,” and told Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that “He’s not an email guy.”

    “Prosecutors say Stone’s claim that [comedian Randy] Credico was his main backchannel to Assange was itself a lie,” wrote Friedman.

    “In fact, Jerome Corsi — a right-wing conspiracy theorist who worked with Stone to help Trump in 2016 — provided Stone with what Corsi said was inside information on Assange’s plans weeks before Credico shared other information about WikiLeaks.

    Stone also had written communications with Corsi that he failed to turn over to the committee.”

    Ultimately, said prosecutors,

    Stone’s “state of mind undermines any argument that he did this in a conscious, evil, purposeful way to mislead the committee.”

    “Prosecutors aren’t simply painting Stone as a liar.

    They also took time Thursday to portray him as a jerk,”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/roger-stone-in-serious-trouble-as-prosecutors-play-jury-audio-of-him-allegedly-lying-to-congress/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29


  25. #47975
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,877
    So Stone lied repeatedly - what a shock!

    Stone's reason for lying repeatedly? Because the truth would make trump and trump campaign look bad for conspiring with russia

    what a shock!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •