Are you expecting a discussion in this forum now to meet courtroom standards for evidence to even be discussed?
Trump sabotage
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Apparently, they only speculate when it involves Democrats. With Republicans, their ability to speculate disappears.
Yes, I expect that when someone posts he knows the law was violated that the level of certainty and evidence approach the reasonable doubt standard.
If not, I would expect them to characterize the evidence as establishing it is likely they violated the law or in their opinion they violated the law or some such level less than that as if it is conclusively established.
I don't think that is unreasonable.
No, I'm not overindexing anything to reinforce anything independence bond fides.
And again, this is a message board, not a courtroom. Are we going to start judging every post on this board with the legal standards/rules imposed in a courtroom.
If that is the case, will you be the one to bring a Rule 802 objection? Maybe I should watch out for 602. And of course, we really need to guard against Rule 404.
And sometimes it isn't hard.
A report that has been confirmed. If you choose to not believe the report, so be it.
Last edited:
No offense, but interacting with you is like interacting with the extreme version of a kid with ADHD. I have asked a very simple question and here's the summary of where this has led:
Me: What specifics do you know to conclude Flynn broke the law?
You: The Logan Act parts one and two. And probably three because in the context intent.
Me: What is the context?
You: You're attacking the Logan Act.
Me: No, I'm not. I'm asking what specifics you have to make your conclusions.
You: Do I have to spell it out for you?
Now that we're caught up...
Me: Yes, spell it out for me. I've been asking a simple question and it isn't what the average atomic mass unit of calcium is. What specific information do you have that leads you to your apparent concrete conclusion? Again, that is a QUESTION that I'm asking YOU who seems to have more information than the rest of us. What was the content and context of Flynn's phone call(s)? This is not a trick question. If you have no specifics, the simple answer is you have no specifics and it's just your opinion. And that's perfectly OK in case you think you need a safe space.
I'll take up your offer for some much needed adult conversation. Give me a bit as I'm feeding my Valentines.
No need now that we've established "I know" actually means "my opinion is...I believe".
And I have given you that information. I am not going to continue to re-type the same information over and over again just because you disagree with what I am saying.
I never said anything about content. I said circumstances and context. When the calls were made, what was occurring when the calls were made, what resulted after the calls were made, etc.
I never said "I know." I said, "Flynn" or "he" "broke the law." Never included the words "I know."
That was something you created to argue against.
No, you haven't, but that's ok. You've provided generics circulated in the media that came from "anonymous sources." That's really an easy answer that wasn't worth all of the fuss. I haven't disagreed with anything you've posted. Quite the opposite. I've simply asked you to provide specifics.
This is a new one. Content is more important than anything else in this case. Context can't be determined without content and circumstances are meaningless without both of those, if at all. What if Flynn was calling to sing Happy Birthday and the blackmail worry is that he's a bad singer?
I'm not going to blast you. You've clearly done your best and I can appreciate that. I'll keep an eye on your posts in case you actually provide information.
And I have provided specifics.
Goodness gracious, lol.
I never said content wasn't important. However, one of your specific questions to me dealt with the circumstances and context of the calls. That is all I was noting in my last post. And btw, context can be determined without content.
@davidallen, I really don't know. On pedestrian appearance, Flynn possibly violated the Logan Act at a minimum. Why he would lie to Pence is beyond me. Without the content of the conversation, it's tough to know WTF this is all about.
Which brings me to did he actually lie to Pence or is he just the designated fall guy? That's a big question for me. Maybe they all had the same "story" but got busted so somebody had to go.
If this was some Flynn initiated stuff, then problem solved. I don't think that's the case though. I'm left wondering what the Trump admin is trying to hide. The transcript of the call(s) would go a long way toward answering that, but I'm afraid the idiot that leaked the fact the conversation had been recorded sank any prospect of that, at least any time soon. The power of the executive office to suppress the release of shit is well known.
I'm not sold on the Trump/Putin conspiracy. I'm more concerned about what kinds of secret deals are going down to "improve relations with Russia" ala the side Iran deals. I certainly don't trust the Trump administration anymore than I did Obama's administration at this point.
My bottom line speculation is that the Trump administration was trying to get ahead on the Obama sanctions of Russia to ensure Putin knew that Trump wasn't going to uphold anything meaningful that Obama may do. Flynn was the contact man because of a previous relationship with the Rusdian diplomat. That's my best guess.
Oh lord, this is what you're going to go with?
You didn't type the words "I know" when making the definitive, absolute statement "he broke the law".
"Again, based on what we know in terms of Flynn's discussions with Pence, he broke this law too.", btw.
Okay, I guess. Got me there.
Likely Flynn acted at the behest of a senior if not the senior official in the new administration- he will take a bullet for the POTUS as evidenced by his resignation. Will the Congress insist on an investigation? Likely not as Trump is still useful.
My extreme tin hat theory of the day...
In my most conspiratorial opinion, Pence is outside looking in. He forced the Flynn resignation by not just going with the flow. Pure speculation but this may be the start of the great divide that culminates in either Trump or Pence leaving office.
Two glasses of wine with my bride over dinner so judge accordingly!
BTW: edited out the bona fides sentence as I reread it it sounded assholish- your independence bona fides are well established.
Not far off from where I'm at. Maybe as I move into the #8 slot it'll become closer.
No offense to your chihuahua, but I'm imagining your chihuahua with with a lobotomy and a raging meth binge.
What no one sees is the credibility bank is empty. Watching these liberal nuts quote the famous line used against Nixon "what did he know when did he know it" means nothing. If trump is really a sociopath and really a hitler why jump on every scratch and bruise? It seems desperate. Syskatine attacking his wedge salad for example.
If he is who they say he is he will be a slam dunk impeachment in six months. Im almost rooting for it so pence can turn us into an official evangelical state. That would be most delicious if trump is railroaded and pence appoints a second Supreme Court judge, fills the lower courts and signs into law the most conservative agenda since ???? I don't even know who.
If he is who they say he is he will be a slam dunk impeachment in six months. Im almost rooting for it so pence can turn us into an official evangelical state. That would be most delicious if trump is railroaded and pence appoints a second Supreme Court judge, fills the lower courts and signs into law the most conservative agenda since ???? I don't even know who.
/end this thread.
One of the funniest things ever posted on a message board, even if you are syskatine.
Thanks HSH.
You could be spot on. There are a lot of questions and not a lot of answers. The common theme in the media is sanctions. That's where my speculation starts.
So. That's nothing unusual. Wedge salad attacks only happen while on LSD or on this message board. I haven't eaten any blotter paper today soooooooooooo...........
Well, you are the one insisting that we engage in strict courtroom/legal accuracy on a message board. So why shouldn't I go there?
btw, I would think on a political message board it is a given that posters are expressing their opinions.
I think this is very likely. Flynn wasn't doing this without either the knowledge of the senior official or under the direction of that senior official.
Pence isn't on the outside looking in on anything in my opinion (note I said "my opinion" CowboyJD)
Everyone should keep an eye on Pence. He reminds me so much of Frank Underwood.
That's cool.
We're all assholes to each other from time to time.
I was being an asshole in the post you questioned. Being told what "we know" and what it supposedly proves brought out the cross examiner in me. That guy IS an asshole. Verified. Buy that guy, I mean the cross examiner in me, not GL....though he may be too, the jury is still out.
Last edited:
I wish I had a nickel for every straw-wedge salad conservatives have constructed to claim victim status.
That's not even courtroom standards. That's a basis for reasonable discussion.
I have stomached a grand total of about 15 minutes of the politics board only to see sources of information cited as freebeacon, RT360, and National Review.
It's like a self-fulfilling, circle jerk of misinformation around this forum.
It's like a self-fulfilling, circle jerk of misinformation around this forum.
I agree to some extent. But at the same time aren't you doing something equally as dumb by lumping everyone in with the two or three that are actually doing it?
Typical liberal. Admit you have spent little time doing research and then bring down the hammer with an insulting opinion on the board as a whole. And David Allen smiled.
*spraying sound*. Let me spray some bitch be gone. We already have some brain dead partisan left wing zealots around here. We don't need anymore. Get!!
And the NY Times, CNN, Politico, Salon, Washington Post.........
The freakin NY Times just bit on tweets from a fake General Flynn Twitter account. Let that sink in. THE NY Times bit on fake tweets.
These days, if you aren't looking at info from multiple sources, you're probably living in a partisan bubble.
Just look deep into the eyes of the avatar. That smarmy smile, just for you...
