Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Generals]

If what they did to Flynn were to be considered normal precedent for future behaviors, no transition team would be willing to speak to foreign powers in the transition period ever again. If a smooth transition of power is desirable, which I believe that it is, we shouldn't be icing people making connections in advance.

Why wouldn't they? As long as the "speaking" is harmless and not followed by blatant lies to the authorities there is nothing to fear. I think people should be iced for making connections in shady circumstances. Flynn wasn't just some random official having normal calls. Flynn was the guy who indirectly worked for the benefit of the Turkish government without notifying it in due time and who was working on a project involving Russia without notifying it either. We could also talk about him attending a Gala in Moscow and sitting next to Putin in 2015, and so forth. This is all relevant context as to why it may have been justified to keep him under close watch just to be sure.

 

[Iron]

More than a few, nobody is likely to deny that.

But there is a difference between 'Thank you for your congratulatory message on my election victory. I look forward to working with you in the future for the benefit of both our countries/nations', and 'Thank you for your congratulatory message on my election victory. Now I would appreciate it if you would oppose these UN resolutions, or at the very least attempt to delay them before I take office'

Would you know what Biden said to those world leaders, and if it constituted as anything illegal?

 

[Agema]

If what they did to Flynn were to be considered normal precedent for future behaviors, no transition team would be willing to speak to foreign powers in the transition period ever again. If a smooth transition of power is desirable, which I believe that it is, we shouldn't be icing people making connections in advance.

Contextually, the USA was on high alert for Russian interference, Flynn had been previously under investigation for iffy Russian connections, the Trump campaign had several personnel with iffy Russian connections, seemed to be inviting Russian interference, and then Flynn had some (possibly inappropriate) conversations with the Russian ambassador on sensitive matters that he lied about to his bosses, and then the FBI. Flynn broke the law in what was possibly a relatively trivial way, but he (and the wider Trump team) had metaphorically begged to be scrutinised heavily. And I bet you, if he'd just told Pence, it would all have been brushed over.

I can't help but note that Trump dropped him quite happily, and a nation shrugged. It was only years later that Trump decided on a revisionist campaign to reframe all the Trump team's cock-ups as a conspiracy that Trump supporters suddenly decided it was a miscarriage of justice after all. The facts hadn't changed an inch, but the politics had, and it suddenly became a political cause to rescue him.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Why wouldn't they? As long as the "speaking" is harmless and not followed by blatant lies to the authorities there is nothing to fear. I think people should be iced for making connections in shady circumstances. Flynn wasn't just some random official having normal calls. Flynn was the guy who indirectly worked for the benefit of the Turkish government without notifying it in due time and who was working on a project involving Russia without notifying it either. We could also talk about him attending a Gala in Moscow and sitting next to Putin in 2015, and so forth. This is all relevant context as to why it may have been justified to keep him under close watch just to be sure.

And the matter of it compounds that Flynn lied to the FBI and multiple occasions.

What Did Michael Flynn Do? A Look Back at the Case

An appeals court orders a lower court to dismiss charges against the former national security adviser, whose legal problems date back to 2017.

www.newsweek.com

The first of those false statements occurred during a January 24, 2017, interview with the FBI, when Flynn wasn't truthful about his contact with Russia. Flynn, according to Mueller, falsely told the FBI he didn't ask Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak to not escalate matters in response to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration. He also falsely claimed to have no memory of subsequent conversations with the ambassador, during which Kislyak said he acceded to Flynn's request.

Mueller also wrote in his December 2018 sentencing memo that Flynn made false statements about his 2016 interactions with the Russian government about a pending U.N. Security Council resolution.

Flynn also made false statements to the Justice Department about his contacts with Turkey, specifically on March 7, 2017, when documents he submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act omitted the fact that Turkey officials supervised and directed a project his company performed, Mueller wrote.

Now, what laws were broken? Here we go.

Did Michael Flynn break the law?

His discussions with Russia ambassador may have put him on the wrong side of he Logan Act and the crime of making false statements, writes Page Pate. But political realities make it unlikely he'll face charges.

www.cnn.com

There are two laws that may have been broken here -- the Logan Act and the crime of making false statements.
The Logan Act makes it a crime for a private citizen to communicate with a foreign government without proper authority in an attempt to influence the actions of the foreign government. President John Adams signed the Logan Act in 1799 in response to the actions of a state legislator (George Logan) who apparently went behind Adams' back and traveled to France to try and negotiate peace with that country during the undeclared Quasi War.
Flynn is guilty of violating the Logan Act if he (1) had communication with a foreign government; (2) with the intent to influence that foreign government, (3) while being a U.S. citizen without the authority to engage in diplomatic discussions on behalf of the United States. If Flynn violated this law, he would be guilty of a felony and face up to three years in prison.

...

The Logan Act is not the only law that Flynn may have broken. Federal law also prohibits someone from making a false statement when discussing a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government if there is an intent to deceive a government agency about an important matter. Making a false statement is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. Unlike the Logan Act, prosecutions under the false statements statute occur all the time.
A false statement can be a lie, or an attempt to cover something up. The critical issue is whether the person intended to mislead a government official about an important matter. Did Flynn make a false statement? Based on what's been reported, it appears that he did. At some point, it appears that Flynn told Vice President Pence that his discussions with the Russian ambassador did not involve the recently imposed sanctions.
That statement was made to a government official, concerned a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and now appears to be false. The only questions are whether Flynn intended to lie or just made an honest mistake, and whether any false statement he may have made was intended to impair the government's investigation of his discussions with the Russians.

 

[Agema]

Would you know what Biden said to those world leaders, and if it constituted as anything illegal?

You may as well ask whether we would know if Trump had watched or engaged with Russian prostitutes urinating for all it matters. Unverifiable hypotheses are just about the least interesting way to conduct intelligent debate.

 

[Iron]

You may as well ask whether we would know if Trump had watched or engaged with Russian prostitutes urinating for all it matters. Unverifiable hypotheses are just about the least interesting way to conduct intelligent debate.

You wouldn't know if he had broken the law.

 

[Asita]

You wouldn't know if he had broken the law.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[ObsidianJones]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And Lo, did Asita come up with the mantra of the time post the 2020 election!

 

[Iron]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If Trump would have spied in on those calls, to maintain Biden hadn't broken any laws, what would you have said?

 

[Avnger]

If Trump would have spied in on those calls, to maintain Biden hadn't broken any laws, what would you have said?

If a pig grew wings, would it be a bird?

 

[Iron]

If a pig grew wings, would it be a bird?

This is what the Obama administration did in 2016. Also why Obama stayed in DC till 2017.

 

[Asita]

If Trump would have spied in on those calls, to maintain Biden hadn't broken any laws, what would you have said?

Getting the obvious out of the way? Not his jurisdiction. But assuming you instead mean "what if Trump had ordered his people to specifically investigate his political rival without probable cause" that is a textbook abuse of power. And to head you off on that, if the truth of that statement is not self-evident based on the stated premise, you really have no business discussing this topic.

The question itself belies your prejudice and hints strongly that you are not arguing in good faith. Namely, you are evidently anticipating that I will give a brief flippant response that you could then use to imply partisan motive/hypocrisy. The truth of the matter, however, is that your question compromises itself by making the investigations at the behest of Trump rather than due to probable cause as determined by an independent body, as was the case with investigating Flynn.

 

[Avnger]

This is what the Obama administration did in 2016.

Flynn was a person-of-interest in an investigation backed by actual evidence beyond "He hurt Trump's feelings." Your inability to understand this is telling.

Also why Obama stayed in DC till 2017.

Obama was president until January 20, 2017. He still lived and worked in DC, Sherlock; no shit he was there.

 

[Iron]

Getting the obvious out of the way? Not his jurisdiction. But assuming you instead mean "what if Trump had ordered his people to specifically investigate his political rival without probable cause" that is a textbook abuse of power. And to head you off on that, if the truth of that statement is not self-evident based on the stated premise, you really have no business discussing this topic.

The question itself belies your prejudice and hints strongly that you are not arguing in good faith. Namely, you are evidently anticipating that I will give a brief flippant response that you could then use to imply partisan motive/hypocrisy. The truth of the matter, however, is that your question compromises itself by making the investigations at the behest of Trump rather than due to probable cause as determined by an independent body, as was the case with investigating Flynn.

Flynn wasn't the only person that was investigated at the time. The narrative was that Obama and allies had attempted to spy on and sabotage the Trump campaign while they were still in office. I tend to believe that.

Flynn was a person-of-interest in an investigation backed by actual evidence beyond "He hurt Trump's feelings."



Obama was president until January 20, 2017. He still lived and worked in DC, Sherlock; no shit he was there.

He stayed there for months after that.

 

[Avnger]

Flynn wasn't the only person that was investigated at the time. The narrative was that Obama and allies had attempted to spy on and sabotage the Trump campaign while they were still in office. I tend to believe that.

Not surprising. You tend to believe any narrative that supports your existing beliefs regardless of evidence.

He stayed there for months after that.

And? He wasn't President anymore. Unless you're asserting that Trump was so incompetent that "the government" had Obama stay around for a few extra months to continue running it, I'm not sure what you're implying.

 

[Asita]

Flynn wasn't the only person that was investigated at the time. The narrative was that Obama and allies had attempted to spy on and sabotage the Trump campaign while they were still in office. I tend to believe that.

Really? And why do you believe that?

 

[Houseman]

 

[Iron]

Really? And why do you believe that?

because it's kino

 

[Avnger]

<tweet snip>

And it's nothing but a bunch of "things didn't happen like I expected, therefore FRAUD!!!1!"

That affidavit is the literally a "top hits" playlists of all the accusations already leveled and disproven dressed up in a new format.

 

[SilentPony]

So I bothered to look into ASOG, 'cause it sounds made up. It is. According to the Wayback Machine their website didn't exist until November 8th of this year, which is pretty amazing for a company that was supposed to be do high level security for election back in 2018. And in fact their website only have information regarding the 2020 election, and its all suspiciously right wing conspiracy theories. And they list no personal on their website, no founder, no operators, no CEOs, nothing. Its all just 'Please contact us for more information' which all end up going to the same email subscription chain.

And doing a little more snooping because Im so fucking tired of this shit, turns out ASOG is based out of 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Dr., Addison, Texas 75001, also known as Turbine Aircraft Marketing Inc. ASOG also is owned by Russel James Ramsland Jr, who despite being a Texas based guy(still can't find ASOG officially) wrote an affidavit about seeing problems in voting in Georgia, citing polling irregularities in Michigan, but mistook the abbreviation of Minnesota, MN, for Michigan, MI. And subsequently withdrew the claims.

So yeah I am go with more cultists bullshit that doesn't hold up under basic 'dude with 10 mins of Google and a diet coke' level of scrutiny.

Edit: oh and according to the Texas Department of Public Safety their "business" license expires at the end of this year, and in fact didn't exist before this year, which is crazy for a business that's been running since at least 2018. Crazy time traveling cops.

TOPS External App

tops.portal.texas.gov