DoJ drops case against Flynn.

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
A think tank devoted to analyzing United States foreign policy "from a realist perspective" (which is to say a polite warmonger's perspective) suggests that the large increase shouldn't count because it's mostly in Afghanistan, but it's not clear why that should matter. I mean, this doesn't look like a good reason to me:
It's not clear why it should matte only because you're not representing it right. It's not saying the strikes in Afghanistan shouldn't count. It's saying that with a majority of drone strikes happen in Afghanistan, and Obama-era strikes in Afghanistan were only being counted starting in 2015, that 2243 for Trump to 1878 for Obama is not a 2-year to 8-year comparison, but rather 2 years compared to 8 years of the minority of strikes and 1.5 years of the majority.

If you want to play around with the source of the numbers, you'll see they counted 0 strikes in Afghanistan prior to 2015, at some point in 2015 they started a count and found 235 strikes, and then in 2016 (the first full year), they counted 1071 strikes in Afghanistan. In 2016, they counted 58 other drone strikes, for a total of 1129 drone strikes in 2016. That is the only full year of Obama they counted. Multiply that by two to compare to 2243 for two years. They're almost exactly identical rates. The issue isn't that Afghanistan shouldn't count, but rather that it wasn't counted before. Obama only did 1878 drone strikes by them not counting 80% of the first 6.5 years of drone strikes.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,045
5,346
118
Australia
1: The Democratic party was softer on the response to the virus early on than was Trump. To this day, I do not know the Democrats were wrong. Whole other topic.
2: If Obama supported it, and that were the only explanation for rising wages, I don't think he would have said Trump would need a magic wand to, in fact, do what he did.

3. That sounds like saying Bonnie vouched for Clyde.
4. Highly unlikely that is all that happened (testing positive once). And do you have a link to his discharge status? I had been unable to definitivly find what it was (general or other). Again, Hunter has very high connections. That alone would be very unlikely to do it. To this day, with his greasy hair, I'm wondering if he is still doing smack (Junkies hold that not washing your hair gives you a better, longer high).


I'm surprised there are not FBI members facing charges for attempted insurrection and if found guilty, hung as traitors. Flynn had been investigated and found, short of violation of the Logan Act, to be clean. Sorry, unless your into entrapment, your job is done there. (They do have on record an effort to get him to admit Logan Act violation. They did not even need to speak to him about that. They had on record sufficient facts, if they really wanted to go forward with it. Odd, they never did; just the entrapment stuff).

Not Guilty is not the same as innocent. If this thing does continue to go forward, expect it to be ultimately thrown out due to the investigator's malfeasance.
Entrapment is not getting someone to confess to a crime; that is literally how law enforcement questioning works. Entrapment is the deliberate goading or setting up someone to commit a crime by law enforcement and then arresting them.

Also as someone who’s been in the Services, you should be aware how security clearances and character checks work.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Yes.




A think tank devoted to analyzing United States foreign policy "from a realist perspective" (which is to say a polite warmonger's perspective) suggests that the large increase shouldn't count because it's mostly in Afghanistan, but it's not clear why that should matter. I mean, this doesn't look like a good reason to me:
Very unsettling. Yet they don't have to report death numbers now. Do we even have enough targets for this? Or are we just blowing up stuff so to need new supplies to keep the military industrial complex happy? I've heard of RCA or Raytheon employees complaining of warehouses full of unused ordinance. War is heck. Where the heck is our anti-war party? The Democrats all but made a ritual sacrifice out of Gabby. Who is talking about getting us out of these things?

Entrapment is not getting someone to confess to a crime; .

The crime, which we have records on, was getting Flynn to lie in a conversation that should not have taken place. Entrapment.

So, you believe anybody discharged from the military will just never attain a high position-- even in an overseas company, with no connection to the US military-- without corrupt shenanigans going on?

I mean, I believe that nepotism had something to do with it, sure, but the idea that administrative discharge over some cocaine destroys someone's employability worldwide is just patently not worth crediting. Maybe it damages his chances within the US. But in a Ukrainian energy company? Why would they care?



But you haven't actually demonstrated that he was "positioned" to investigate him. There's no indication at all that such an investigation was happening, or was about to happen. We literally just have Trump and Giuliani's word.

Hey! Trump fired Comey, right? Just as Comey was positioned to investigate the Trump Foundation!
I wouldn't want to write in absolutes, but it sure is smoke that a an apparently unemployable guy went on Air Force 2 to China and collected a billion or two for his allies.

They told us in the military about 2 guys that did amount to something regardless of a bad military record. Walt Disney )(WW1) and boxer Rocky Graziano around 1942 for AWOL. It isn't anything I'd want on my record.

As for, was the prosecutor positioned to prosecute Hunter? You write of Giuliani's word. Seems more credible than the guy replacing the fired buy exonerating Hunter when he appears to be so guilty of corruption.
 
Last edited:

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
The crime, which we have records on, was getting Flynn to lie in a conversation that should not have taken place. Entrapment.
I read the emails, dude. It's not entrapment. Trump is just trying to get one of his corrupt buddies free because Trump himself is corrupt AF.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Backing off. I think I made my point. The FBI appears to have engaged in entrapment. I think Flynn, one way or another, will win this thing. They were out of line and anyone that cares about equality under the law and curtailing government abuses should be glad of it. Time will tell soon.
Entrapment is where you force someone to commit a crime. No one made Flynn make those calls. No one even knew they were happening, except maybe Trump or some of his staffers and I don't think there is enough evidence for that.

You may be talking about coercion - forcing someone to say they're guilty. I'm going to need way more evidence for that, because it sounds like to me, that Flynn wasn't.

You may also being talking about him being innocent - which is not entrapment - people are innocent all the time. He DEFINITELY made a call. That is an absolute fact. What's being argued is whether it was illegal or not. And, once again, that's not entrapment.

1: The Democratic party was softer on the response to the virus early on than was Trump. To this day, I do not know the Democrats were wrong. Whole other topic.
2: If Obama supported it, and that were the only explanation for rising wages, I don't think he would have said Trump would need a magic wand to, in fact, do what he did.
What, specifically, do you think Trump did? Was it the tax cuts? I think Trump did a good job bullying business owners into passing on the cuts to wages. Then they fired a bunch of people 6mths later because Capitalist gotta Capitalist. I would have liked more bullying but I kinda prove to me that minimum wage increases are the way to go. Are you talking about the trade war? Because it ended up with a whole heap of money being lost on both sides with no winner. Both China and the US lost. Are you talking about helping steel worker? Yes definite win. Definite loss for any company that uses steel and they are now looking to go off shore or closing.

That he was resisting entering ever more wars and destroying nations like Libya just, cuz for the permanent war wings of both parties, this theoretically looks good. Not as forcefully as Gabby, Trump is resisting this sort of abuse and exploitation of the American people. Biden? He'll double down. If elected, expect a shooting war with Iran shortly.
Ah.. Iran? Palestine? Possibly China? He's been edging closer to war on two of those fronts. If re-elected, expect a shooting war with Iran shortly. (I.e. bombing a general doesn't make me support Trump. And it certainly gave Iran justification to keep stealing goods off Westerners)
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
When I was in the service, they assured us that being discharged for reasons other than Honorable was a major black mark against employ ability. I believe that. When you add to it, that with Hunter's clout, his discharge was not just a run of the mill issue, he just is not employable. But there he was, bringing down big bucks.
People of Hunter Biden's social class are always employable, irrespective of the odd drug offence. They need to have committed a really heinous cock up or crime to sink themselves. That's what being rich and well connected means. The current PM of the UK, for instance, was fired from his first job as a journalist for making stuff up. Despite that, he instantly got a job with another major newspaper, because the rules do not apply to people like that. Ivanka Trump would have achieved approximately nothing without her father's fame. He just gives her a high level job in his organisation, jewellery companies just slap her name on their products for publicity, she copies another company's shoe designs for her own line. She never has to truly achieve anything on her own. And so it is.

As for Biden boasting of a quid pro quo to get a prosecutor fired just as that guy is positioned to investigate your apparently crooked son and friends? It is what it is.
Not even the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors Trump was trying to buy claimde was Hunter Biden personally under investigation. The company that hired him was. The rationale is that it hired him to improve its international image and provide protection from fraud claims.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
I read the emails, dude. It's not entrapment. Trump is just trying to get one of his corrupt buddies free because Trump himself is corrupt AF.
We'll see. I think the Judge has the right and power to keep the case open. I'm thinking if he truly is a rabid anti-Trump partisan, he will come to regret doing so as the FBI abuses become clearer. Only time will tell.
Entrapment is where you force someone to commit a crime. No one made Flynn make those calls. No one even knew they were happening, except maybe Trump or some of his staffers and I don't think there is enough evidence for that.

You may be talking about coercion - forcing someone to say they're guilty. I'm going to need way more evidence for that, because it sounds like to me, that Flynn wasn't.

You may also being talking about him being innocent - which is not entrapment - people are innocent all the time. He DEFINITELY made a call. That is an absolute fact. What's being argued is whether it was illegal or not. And, once again, that's not entrapment.

What, specifically, do you think Trump did? Was it the tax cuts? I think Trump did a good job bullying business owners into passing on the cuts to wages. Then they fired a bunch of people 6mths later because Capitalist gotta Capitalist. I would have liked more bullying but I kinda prove to me that minimum wage increases are the way to go. Are you talking about the trade war? Because it ended up with a whole heap of money being lost on both sides with no winner. Both China and the US lost. Are you talking about helping steel worker? Yes definite win. Definite loss for any company that uses steel and they are now looking to go off shore or closing.

Ah.. Iran? Palestine? Possibly China? He's been edging closer to war on two of those fronts. If re-elected, expect a shooting war with Iran shortly. (I.e. bombing a general doesn't make me support Trump. And it certainly gave Iran justification to keep stealing goods off Westerners)
Not sure where you get your definition. I think this one works:
"Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime. " We have the FBI on record stating the purpose of the talk was to either get him to lie so they could prosecute him or get him fired. No conversation, no lying, no crime. No charges against Flynn. I think he will walk.
For our economy, what did Trump do? Huge topic. Off hand:
1) Our stock market is irrational and emotion driven. Having a President elected stating he is about putting America first and fighting bad trade deals (that may have resulted in the friends and family of political operative getting huge kickbacks) certainly helps.
2) Cutting taxes: now rich people have more to invest or spend. Both good for people's wallets. (Or hoard and hide and lose to inflation and lost opportunity: I'm still on the fence about inflation, which would punish hoarders. But I am informed inflation adds to income disparity, the single most serious destructive social issue facing the USA).
3) Too soon for me to think cutting legal and illegal immigration played a part. Have our numbers gone done? Listening to Ann Coulter, they have not.
I've read a long list of things he has done that supposedly helped but I don't understand enough about them to argue one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Hey! Trump fired Comey, right? Just as Comey was positioned to investigate the Trump Foundation!
So I heard, there's an argument this was a major sticking point between Barr and Mueller.

Barr apparently takes the view that anything the president can legally do cannot be obstruction of justice. So if Trump fires anyone in the executive branch who is investigating him or his allies, or offers to pardon anyone who may make testify against him, it's all fine (at least legally; not necessary morally). Mueller apparently has a different view.

The may be why Mueller explicitly included the statement that he did not exonerate Trump. That's arguably a strange thing to say because it really should be as simple as Trump either met reasonable standards for obstruction or did not. However, what happens if Mueller thinks Trump could reasonably be accused of obstructing justice, but he feels the Attorney General has effectively blocked him from saying so? Therefore he drops that in, as if to say "actually guys, there is a reasonable case here after all".
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
2) Cutting taxes: now rich people have more to invest or spend. Both good for people's wallets. (Or hoard and hide and lose to inflation and lost opportunity: I'm still on the fence about inflation, which would punish hoarders. But I am informed inflation adds to income disparity, the single most serious destructive social issue facing the USA).
This doesn't work. Never has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
1) Our stock market is irrational and emotion driven. Having a President elected stating he is about putting America first and fighting bad trade deals (that may have resulted in the friends and family of political operative getting huge kickbacks) certainly helps.
Okay... but how bad were these trade deals? I actually think it's fine for a country to decide that a 20-year-old treaty no longer suits its needs as it used to. On the other hand, the renegotiation of NAFTA to USMCA was mostly cosmetic. The US got slightly more out of it than it gave, but only in very minor ways and at a potential cost: Canada and Mexico were very happy to ally with the USA on trade, but the USA bullied them over USMCA even for those small concessions. That's a loss of trust: traditional US allies are already, shall we say, "diversifying their portfolio" diplomatically, militarily and economically.

We don't yet know how the US-China trade deal is going to end out, but early reports were that the USA would end up achieving very little. That was even before covid-19, where the USA has taken a much bigger hit than China, which weakens it's negotiating position more.

There is an inherent tension between claiming America is a world leader, and "America First". The only way the two can operate at the same time is if the USA is a tyrant. By pursuing America First so aggressively, Trump is giving up being a world leader. Another couple of decades of this, we might end up with a geopolitical environment where the USA ends up very short of allies when it wants to influence global affairs.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Okay... but how bad were these trade deals? I actually think it's fine for a country to decide that a 20-year-old treaty no longer suits its needs as it used to. On the other hand, the renegotiation of NAFTA to USMCA was mostly cosmetic. The US got slightly more out of it than it gave, but only in very minor ways and at a potential cost: Canada and Mexico were very happy to ally with the USA on trade, but the USA bullied them over USMCA even for those small concessions. That's a loss of trust: traditional US allies are already, shall we say, "diversifying their portfolio" diplomatically, militarily and economically.

We don't yet know how the US-China trade deal is going to end out, but early reports were that the USA would end up achieving very little. That was even before covid-19, where the USA has taken a much bigger hit than China, which weakens it's negotiating position more.

There is an inherent tension between claiming America is a world leader, and "America First". The only way the two can operate at the same time is if the USA is a tyrant. By pursuing America First so aggressively, Trump is giving up being a world leader. Another couple of decades of this, we might end up with a geopolitical environment where the USA ends up very short of allies when it wants to influence global affairs.
As far as I can see, they gave ground to China, mainly to try and enforce Intellectual Property Rights. Which sounds awfully like something that starts with T and ends with PP. The amount of times that a Trump has said Obama is bad, and then gone ahead and followed Obama’s plan is astonishing. I wouldn’t be surprised that DACA isn’t supported by Trump soon.

But then Bojo copied May’s plan but without the desire to fix the problems with it before Brexiting, and calls it ‘new’. And that somehow passed the sniff test
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
As far as I can see, they gave ground to China, mainly to try and enforce Intellectual Property Rights. Which sounds awfully like something that starts with T and ends with PP. The amount of times that a Trump has said Obama is bad, and then gone ahead and followed Obama’s plan is astonishing. I wouldn’t be surprised that DACA isn’t supported by Trump soon.
As far as I have seen, on the critical grounds that supposedly initiated the trade war, China has so far pretty much just been accepted to reiterate past commitments, which adds up to a whole heap of nothing. Much of what the trade deal seems to be doing is actually just trying to force China to buy more stuff from the USA to reduce the trade deficit: a major bugbear of Trump. However, the measures to do so seem to be overambitious and include opt-outs. In other words, they aren't going to happen. After that there's a load of small stuff where the USA has made some minor gains.

But then Bojo copied May’s plan but without the desire to fix the problems with it before Brexiting, and calls it ‘new’. And that somehow passed the sniff test
Bojo is a moron. Well, he's not - he's very clever, just not in ways a PM should be for the good of his country. He's a "lightweight": his cleverness is witticisms, nice turns of phrase, superficial charm - whilst underneath he has no real interest in or understanding of how important things work. The ruling clique around him are much the same: ideologues, journalists and PR drones, all of whom have fancy ideas and/or are skilled at putting arguments across, but deficient in their understanding of how things work. Their tactics are merely to present anything as they please, up to and including lies, with appeals to populist low common denominators, and not getting called on it by the right wing press. Although they might be pushing their luck already - the right wing press are already firing warning shots over unhappiness with the gov's response to covid-19 and Kier Starmer eviscerating Johnson in parliamentary debate.

Bojo's plan largely managed to avoid the sniff test. Effectively what he did - he and his Brexit ultras exploiting May's miscalculations and subsequent weakness - was to deadlock the Brexit process into such an exhausting and frustrating process that in the end the Tories / Brexiters would accept anything with "Brexit" on the front cover. Plus, of course, the sheer ruthlessness of expelling from the party any MPs who might have done to him as he did to May (many of them, we we might note, more experienced and pragmatic MPs).