frenetic

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

An excellent Cliff notes article on the Flynn case.

 

The Federalist - Your Guide To The Obama Administration's Hit On Michael Flynn

 

Case law explaining a perjury trap, which applies specifically to Flynn's case as there was no legitimate, ongoing investigation at the time of the FBI's interview of Flynn:  it involves the government’s use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on materials which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation.

 

A few highlights.

• An in depth explanation as to why Flynn didn't break any laws.
• How prosecutors mislead the courts.
• Robert Mueller's special counsel and prosecutors violating Judge Sullivan's court order.
• The 302's.  They were edited by Lisa Page and Strzok yet the government claims they can't find the originals (I wonder why).

 

It should be pointed out that Judge Sullivan rejected the entrapment charge in December. So the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws clearly didn't pass muster with him.

16 hours ago, yogi100 said:

How is Trump responsible for infected Americans? He did not introduce CV19 into their lives.

So it's entirely irrelevant that the leaders of some country acted a lot sooner and have a lot better results?

53 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

The effects of the Coronavirus seem to be very hard to predict.  0 deaths in Laos vs 1560 deaths in Ecuador?  The number of US deaths could be 1/2 the number predicted or it could be twice.  At this point I don't think anyone really know.

In the case of Laos and Ecuador you have 2 poor nations with limited ability to gather statistics and governments that don't have a history of respecting independent institutions. Especially in the case of Laos. The best way to understand the situation is to use the information available from economically developed nations that allow for independent institutions to function.

On 5/2/2020 at 5:11 AM, Tippaporn said:

The entire concept of "approved sources" is bogus and contrived.  For one it's meant to protect the MSM as they've been anointed "approved sources" when in fact, as you well know and have pointed out, they have become pure propaganda.  For another it's meant to muzzle the true investigative journalists who ultimately will not be stopped from exposing the crimes of corrupt power no matter how great the attempt is to censure them.

 

The New York Times, WapO, CNN and others have been caught time and time again writing outright fake stories, printing bogus headlines without vetting the information which get completely debunked in a day or two.  At what point do they lose their credibility and lose their "approved sources" status?  Should have happened long ago.

 

And finally, who is the arbiter of truth?  Who or what group gets to decide?  All information is filtered and altered in some way through the personal beliefs of each and every individual.  Period.  The concept of fact checking is often the process of filtering information through another's belief system, through another's world view, especially when what is being fact checked entails a great deal of complexity.  And this then is supposed to be accepted by all as ultimate truth?

 

I love the U.S. for the foundational truths it's creation was based, rooted in.  Freedom, for one.  Freedom of speech is merely a subset of freedom, period.  Who in their right mind would argue against the principle truth of freedom, which is the absolute basis of all life?  Not I.  Only men and women who have accepted twisted beliefs which run counter to and deny the true reality of which they are yet unaware.

 

Back to Flynn.  What astounds me is the fact that the truth of Flynn's case, finally being brought to light and which exposes the illegal misdeeds of rogue and corrupted players at the highest levels of the FBI and Justice Department, should make every true American cheer for the exposure of corruption and cheer for the exoneration of a man wronged yet we find the exact opposite.  We have individuals here who, despite being confronted with an avalanche of undeniable facts, continue to ardently argue for a narrative which is being shown to be false.  And when they are pointed in the direction of where the truth lays they refuse to look.  Can any of you posters explain this?

This is coming from someone who believes that Barack Obama was deeply involved in the "conspiracy" against Trump.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Breitbart - Sidney Powell: Comey & Co. Committed Prosecutable Crimes in Targeting Flynn, Trump

 

"Former FBI Director James Comey and other senior officials in the Obama administration likely committed federal crimes in their use of “lawfare” against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and President Donald Trump, said Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, former federal prosecutor, and author of Conviction Machine: Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse.  Recently unsealed FBI documents revealed that the bureau “completely made up what they said [Michael Flynn] said wrong,” said Powell. “I think that’s going to be more evident with the next productions we’re expecting this week.""

 

Within the article is an interview with Sidney Powell, in which she states: "The government has advised that we will be getting more documents, including more text messages between FBI people."

 

I don't think people quite understand the expected fallout from the implosion of this case.  Again, the Flynn case is intimately connected to the entire Russian collusion narrative propagated by Comey et al and the mainstream press.  When that narrative is exposed as being equally contrived America is going to have to do some serious soul searching.  And heads will roll.  My prediction is that Obama will be one of those heads to be put on the chopping block.

 

When that happens will those libs here who have sanctioned these false narratives make profuse apologies?  Will you folks apologize for your denigrations of Flynn?  I kinda doubt it because as the Flynn case steamrolls downhill there is nary a lib to be seen on this thread.  Not one of them appear here to denounce a single travesty perpetrated by corrupt government officials.  Not one.  Makes one wonder if they truly believe in the principles their country was founded on.

Is this the same Sidney Powell whose arguments the Judge rejected last time? Why do you think that the primary advocate for Michael Flynn should be considered a trustworthy source? Do you actually believe that his attorney is going to provide an objective view of the situation? 

On 5/3/2020 at 3:07 PM, Tippaporn said:

I'm apolitical and don't believe in parties at all.  In the U.S. the Democrats and Republicans are a two headed snake.  I've never identified with any political parties.  So my feelings for Obama are not at all due to the fact that he's a Democrat.  But I believe Obama as a man is dirtier than sin.  I think he's about as slick as Slick Willie.  I pegged him as an empty suit when he was running back in '07.  We shall see what his involvement was in the Russian collusion hoax and all the other dirty scandals.

Another version of "I'm not a Trump supporter but..."

6 hours ago, Brigand said:

The American electoral college system does have it's merits as well as some flaws. The founders had to give some power to individual states or it wouldn't have flied for so long. The electoral college system basically means that all politicians have to engage everyone from everywhere as otherwise it would be 4 states deciding the outcome every time and the other 46 would just look on helplessly and that would be a recipe for trouble/discontent and the forefathers had the sense to see that. Yes, it could be tweaked to more reflect the modern realities but the essential idea should stay as it makes politicians work for every vote from everywhere and forces a need to address the issues of every state.

Actually it's the reverse of what you claim. Since the total number of votes for a particular candidate don't matter in states that lean heavily republican or democratic, there's a lot less incentive to address the citizens of those states since the final totals in those states won't matter at all whether a candidate wins by 50,00 votes or 500000.

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Maybe you're on to something. I wonder why your Democrat party is still using the delegate system, which is identical to the electoral college, to choose their nominee. Shouldn't they be using the same system for choosing their nomination that they want for the entire country?

 

Of course, we all know why. They're very good at rigging primaries using this system.

Yours is an utterly invalid argument. For one thing, in most states with I think the exception of Maine it's winner take all in the electoral system. In the Democratic primaries, the amount of delegates a candidate wins is proportional to the percentage of votes a candidate gets. In addition, the number of delegates is a lot higher for each state than the number of electors for that state. So the number of delegates each candidate acquires corresponds very closely to the total vote.

And please share with us how the Democrats rig the primaries?

Actually the most unfair primaries are the caucuses which discriminate against working people since they take up so much time. So a much smaller percentage of eligible voters actually participate.  You know who did best in the caucuses? Bernie Sanders. 

The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.

5 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

If liberals want to change the republic—fine, have at it.  You’ll need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.  And that means a majority of States must agree.  Ever since Hillary lost in 2016, liberals have trashed the US Constitution.

So, wanting to amend the US Constitution means wanting to trash it? Interesting. Don't you just hate it how those liberals trashed the Constitution when they pushed for the 14th Amendment? The one that outlawed slavery.

In total, the Constitution has been "trashed" 27 times.

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Many countries have defaulted on debt. Russia, Argentina and Pakistan have done so.

And the consequences weren't pretty. And the reason these countries have defaulted (although I don't believe Pakistan actually has done so) is because they were borrowing in dollars so had to repay in dollars. If they were borrowing in their own currency, then repaying a debt would be no problem. But what rational lender would lend them money? But since the US's creditors borrowin dollars, the US can easily repay. Were the US to not repay for reasons other than necessity, that would not only devalue the dollar severely, but result in major damage to the worldwide financial system. It's a nonstarter. 

2 hours ago, Knocker33 said:

Well they are not going to admit are they.. <deleted>

So, if someone doesn't admit to something, that's proof that they did it?

22 hours ago, Magenta408 said:

I've read in the Gateway Pundit that the American, Anthony Fauci paid out some $3.7 million or perhaps it was $37 million to a Wuhan Laboratory. Hunt it down on the Gateway Pundit. The USA knew as early as November 2019 of this SARS-COV-2 and failed to do anything about it at the time safe to inform israel. GO FIGURE!

Here's a link to some of the false stories promoted by Gateway Pundit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

14 hours ago, honcho said:

damn right, trump would not look like a chump if the ccp had not intentionally spread this wuhan virus to the world..... the evil the ccp is spreading is malicious, intentional and very effective, i just hope the don makes them pay big time so the ccp loses its grip and china gets new leadership!  go the don!

And yet there were many world leaders whom the CCP did not make look like chumps. How do you explain that discrepancy?

23 hours ago, than said:

Trump forgets that China has the largest share of US debt.

Not only does China not own the largest share of US debt, it doesn't even rank first among foreign countries. That position belongs to japan. China holds about 5 percent of total US debt.

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The biggest issue by far is that this group was already suffering serious complications.  HCQ is believed to have little efficacy in the advanced stages of the disease when the virus has already entered the cell membrane and started to replicate.  It's efficacy is believed to be in the very early stages of infection when it may be able to interfere with the virus getting inside the cell membrane and replicating.  So, what does this study prove?  Nothing!  It is a garbage study.

 

And can you point to any scientifically valid studies demonstrating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine? It seems you're being selectively finicky.

20 minutes ago, kingdong said:

So do I and hope they follow the usa,there are going to be hard times ahead and the West will simply be unable to afford their current expenditure to economic migration,and this isn,t racism it's simple arithmetic.

Because you believe that immigration represents a net cost to the usa? How do you know that?

On 4/23/2020 at 1:57 PM, hotchilli said:

Shame that's not reflected at the pump?

Of course the price of a barrel of oil is reflected at the pump. Anybody who buys knows that this is the case. It's just that the cost of a barrel of oil isn't the only factor in the cost. There's the small matter of refining for one thing. And even if you could pump crude directly into your automobile there would still be transport costs.

2 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

Yes you got it. Not reinfection as it cannot be eliminated as already attached to your white blood cells and will just at times multiply.  

No, Covid-19 virus doesn't attach to the white blood cells. It only attaches to cells with ACE2 receptors. Neither white nor red blood cells come equipped with those. Unfortunately, lots of other kinds of cells do.