Biden/Flynn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

12 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

@Wulaw Horn my apologies. I reacted not to the content, but to the defense if what was clearly a troll post. On its own, your post is fine, although lacking in context as to what actually Flynn did that got him in trouble. 

Shrugs. 
90% of what is posted here is troll posts of shit posts or pretty basically personal attacks that none of the pussies that post on here would ever say in real life. 
mid an idea is worth talking about I talk about it. I think that the Logan act is antiquated and stupid. It’s being flouted right now by Joe Biden. There is no constitutional office of “president elect” and he’s a private citizen. 
it’s also the same thing every presidential elect has done in my lifetime (and probably forever), it makes sense foR Biden to talk to other heads of state, and it’s good policy. 
the Logan act is stupid. The fact that anyone ever threatened Flynn with it is stupid. The idea that anyone who will be part of a new administration could ever violate it is stupid. That’s what I was talking about because that’s what I wanted to talk about. 
It’s  not a “both sides” argument it’s a “this law over here is stupid” argument. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

. 
the Logan act is stupid. The fact that anyone ever threatened Flynn with it is stupid. The idea that anyone who will be part of a new administration could ever violate it is stupid. That’s what I was talking about because that’s what I wanted to talk about. 
It’s  not a “both sides” argument it’s a “this law over here is stupid” argument. 

Were you alive during the Iran hostage crisis and the whole Iran/Contra thing?  It’s not stupid.   It’s not a “ both sides” thing.  Only one side has ever danced on that edge.  Repeatedly.  

[Sawbonz 27434]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

He was. But the initial crime the fbi was threatening him with was Logan act. 

And?

[TwiceHorn 31282]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The comparison of Flynn, as NSA-appointee, and Kislyak vs. Biden as President-Elect, and Obrador is valid.  Both were/are private citizens at the time.

The insidiousness of the conversations is a different matter, but fairly irrelevant.  Both Flynn and Biden were speaking about upcoming policy with the new administration.

Flynn was never accused of violating the Logan Act, and it's not why he was "indicted," or fired.  It was because he lied about it to everyone who asked.  Because he seems to be rather stupid, and thought he was doing something wrong, apparently.

His choice of lobbying clients is, at best, questionable and it throws his judgment into serious question.

His post-election actions, calling for martial law, are traitorous.

 

I forgot to add that while these are all related and components of Michael Flynn, for legal purposes, I think they have to be analyzed separately.

This America, man.  You don't get to try and sentence a person for crimes they aren't charged with.  It's not OK to prop up the government's case with other bad shit that he may have done.  Similarly, because the government's case may have been flawed (not saying it was), doesn't make him innocent.

His lobbying activities, FARA violations, Logan Act potential violations, and advocacy of martial law are all separate matters from what the was charged with and pardoned from.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I forgot to add that while these are all related and components of Michael Flynn, for legal purposes, I think they have to be analyzed separately.

This America, man.  You don't get to try and sentence a person for crimes they aren't charged with.  It's not OK to prop up the government's case with other bad shit that he may have done.  Similarly, because the government's case may have been flawed (not saying it was), doesn't make him innocent.

His lobbying activities, FARA violations, Logan Act potential violations, and advocacy of martial law are all separate matters from what the was charged with and pardoned from.

So many potential crimes.  Hey, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.  That’s the republican mantra.   Flynn is a shitbag, and a flag boy of issues in both military and politics after. I’d like to see him hang while staring at Dan Crenshaw’s eyepatch next to him.  The pardoned blackwater boys can dance in the audience.

[Captainant 27464]

It's also worth noting that Flynn's charges were significantly reduced in exchange for his plea bargain and cooperation. So to claim that all he did wrong was a single logan act violation is not accurate

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's also worth noting that Flynn's charges were significantly reduced in exchange for his plea bargain and cooperation. So to claim that all he did wrong was a single logan act violation is not accurate

Not accurate is a pretty good description of over 40% of our population.  Maybe not honest is a better descriptor.  

[TwiceHorn 31282]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I forgot to add that while these are all related and components of Michael Flynn, for legal purposes, I think they have to be analyzed separately.

This America, man.  You don't get to try and sentence a person for crimes they aren't charged with.  It's not OK to prop up the government's case with other bad shit that he may have done.  Similarly, because the government's case may have been flawed (not saying it was), doesn't make him innocent.

His lobbying activities, FARA violations, Logan Act potential violations, and advocacy of martial law are all separate matters from what the was charged with and pardoned from.

Actually, I guess we should look at the pardon language and see if it's inclusive.  Seems oddly limited to crimes investigated or potentially investigated by the Special Counsel. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/flynn-pardon-read-file/index.html

That's pretty broad, but also seems to create a potential loophole for further prosecution.

 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I guess we should look at the pardon language and see if it's inclusive.  Seems oddly limited to crimes investigated or potentially investigated by the Special Counsel. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/flynn-pardon-read-file/index.html

That's pretty broad, but also seems to create a potential loophole for further prosecution.

 

 

It doesn’t really matter.  That’s the aggravating thing.  Not that Flynn was a piece of shit criminal, but that people will rationalize his filth and he’ll end up as a commentator on some news network ala Ollie.  

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

And?

Again, nothing other than this:

the government criminalizes too many actions and that’s bad for the populace. 
talk to any cop and they will tell you they can essentially follow any driver for 5 minutes and find 8 different violations they could pull someone over for. 
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
this book explains how the laws are so overly broad and vague that anyone could be a target of criminal investigation in the right hands of an overzealous prosecutor. 
All of this is insidious- it allows for

racial discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination. Settling of scores. What happened to Martha Stewart is stupid. And it’s not like I’m a Martha Stewart fan. There’s just too much potential for those with power to have vendetta against those out of favor- and the idea of procedural crimes being brought when a real crime is investigated and not there is even more irksome. 
we talk about criminal reform all the time on here and it’s something, as someone who has spent a little bit of time around the system, that I think is overdue. 
We are so overly broad that the only reason the system doesn’t fall apart is discretion on the part of prosecutors and law enforcement. I don’t trust those guys to get it right all the time. So let’s just simplify and get rid of a whole lot of this shit.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Again, nothing other than this:

the government criminalizes too many actions and that’s bad for the populace. 
talk to any cop and they will tell you they can essentially follow any driver for 5 minutes and find 8 different violations they could pull someone over for. 
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
this book explains how the Le’s are so overt broad and vague that anyone could be a target of criminal investigation in the right hands of an overzealous prosecutor. 
All of this is insidious- it allows for

racial discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination. Settling of scores. What happened to Martha Stewart is stupid. And it’s not like I’m a Martha Stewart fan. There’s just too much potential for those with power to have vendetta against those out of favor- and the idea of procedural crimes being brought when a real crime is investigated and not there is even more irksome. 
we talk about criminal reform all the time on here and it’s something, as someone who has spent a little bit of time around the system, that I think is overdue. 
We are so overly broad that the only reason the system doesn’t fall apart is discretion on the part of prosecutors and law enforcement. I don’t trust those guys to get it right all the time. So let’s just simplify and get rid of a whole lot of this shit.

Agree, let’s start by getting rid of the criminalization of being poor.  Martha Stewart broke the law.  So did Mike Flynn, George Coffee boy and Roger Stone.  As opposed to Jose who got busted for DWI, and now has to pay $20k in legal fees, classes and surcharges and SR22 insurance, or not provide for his family.  The criminal justice system is broke as fuck.   

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

6 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Agree, let’s start by getting rid of the criminalization of being poor.  Martha Stewart broke the law.  So did Mike Flynn, George Coffee boy and Roger Stone.  As opposed to Jose who got busted for DWI, and now has to pay $20k in legal fees, classes and surcharges and SR22 insurance, or not provide for his family.  The criminal justice system is broke as fuck.   

That’s why I started with the first thing as saying it allows for racial discrimination. Any cop that wants to follow someone for a minute bc he thinks they look sketchy has a whole host of tools at their disposal to pull people over with. It’s wrong. And insidious. 
I don’t understand exactly what you mean about Jose and dwi- (was he drunk or not?) in your example, but it’s always been troubling to me that the posters and commercials for dwi stress “you can’t afford it” not, you are a danger to yourself and society. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[956 Worldwide 34443]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s why I started with the first thing as saying it allows for racial discrimination. Any cop that wants to follow someone for a minute bc he thinks they look sketchy has a whole host of tools at their disposal to pull people over with. It’s wrong. And insidious. 
I don’t understand exactly what you mean about Jose and dwi- (was he drunk or not?) in your example, but it’s always been troubling to me that the posters and commercials for dwi stress “you can’t afford it” not, you are a danger to yourself and society. 

Those posters are probably more effective as a deterrent. We discount the likelihood of the consequences of our own actions and overestimate our abilities (other assholes can’t drive drunk, I just had a few beers and am fine).

”If you drive drunk the man will go in dry on your ass” is a different message entirely. It’s telling you to not give other people the chance to mess with you. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by 956 Worldwide

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Those posters are probably more effective as a deterrent. We discount the likelihood of the consequences of our own actions and overestimate our abilities (other assholes can’t drive drunk, I just had a few beers and am fine).

”If you drive drunk the man will go in dry on your ass” is a different message entirely. It’s telling you to not give other people the chance to mess with you. 

I get that.  It it also seems like the state is implicitly admitting it’s a money grab on their part. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

What I meant is the “justice” system is weighted heavily in the favor of those with financial and personal means.  A crime is a crime. Try sitting in jail waiting on the system to do its thing.  Then you get out, and have a million other things to do before you are actually free.  You are one ignorant son of a bitch. I don’t fault you for that, you’re lucky.  I resent you for it though.   

[UpperWestside 6136]

22 hours ago, Walden Ponderer said:

No, you probably can't. It's not just that his point was stupid, it's that it was presented in such a psychotic and disorganized fashion that he left most of us wondering if he was having seizures of some kind.

That original post was all over the map. I am still not certain what the point was supposed to be.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

What I meant is the “justice” system is weighted heavily in the favor of those with financial and personal means.  A crime is a crime. Try sitting in jail waiting on the system to do its thing.  Then you get out, and have a million other things to do before you are actually free.  You are one ignorant son of a bitch. I don’t fault you for that, you’re lucky.  I resent you for it though.   

That’s not what I asked you though. That’s your interpretation of what I asked you. It’s two separate things. 
I mean, where, exactly, in any of this, are you reading me as saying it isn’t better to have money than not?  
I literally have made 2 or 3 different points in time during our conversation the point that giving discretion to Leo’s and prosecutors give them the ability to target disaffected groups. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[956 Worldwide 34443]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I get that.  It it also seems like the state is implicitly admitting it’s a money grab on their part. 

I don’t see it that way at all, if it were really just a money grab they wouldn’t be trying to deter it.

Just the same as the “click it or ticket” campaign, stupid people are more likely to try and avoid a fine than save their own damn lives. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by 956 Worldwide

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what I asked you though. That’s your interpretation of what I asked you. It’s two separate things. 
I mean, where, exactly, in any of this, are you reading me as saying it isn’t better to have money than not?  
I literally have made 2 or 3 different points in time during our conversation the point that giving discretion to Leo’s and prosecutors give them the ability to target disaffected groups. 

Yes you’re correct, I let my personal bias color my interpretation of your reply.   That said, none of what I said is incorrect.  

[TXSG8R 3360]

Something that may only bug the shit out of me as a former soldier is Flynn absolutely knows the weight of lying in a leadership position. As a military officer, lying is a punishable offense under the UCMJ, it’s not spin, alternative facts, etc. He can transition to being a political POS, but he needs to drop the use of his former rank as an honorific. He chose to dishonor the values of his military duties, he doesn’t deserve the respect of that former position. Fuck that guy. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes you’re correct, I let my personal bias color my interpretation of your reply.   That said, none of what I said is incorrect.  

Cool man. Feel free to put me on ignore, or answer what I say. Either way is cool with me and preferable to insulting me over something you made up in your head that I didn’t say. 

[956 Worldwide 34443]

8 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Shrugs. 
90% of what is posted here is troll posts of shit posts or pretty basically personal attacks that none of the pussies that post on here would ever say in real life. 
mid an idea is worth talking about I talk about it. I think that the Logan act is antiquated and stupid. It’s being flouted right now by Joe Biden. There is no constitutional office of “president elect” and he’s a private citizen. 
it’s also the same thing every presidential elect has done in my lifetime (and probably forever), it makes sense foR Biden to talk to other heads of state, and it’s good policy. 
the Logan act is stupid. The fact that anyone ever threatened Flynn with it is stupid. The idea that anyone who will be part of a new administration could ever violate it is stupid. That’s what I was talking about because that’s what I wanted to talk about. 
It’s  not a “both sides” argument it’s a “this law over here is stupid” argument. 

In all seriousness, I think that a lot hinges on what a “dispute or controversy” is. Merely talking with any foreign leader about policy is not a violation. 
 

 Textually, there’s a lot of leeway but talking with Russia about sanctions and reciprocal diplomatic mission closures is very different from “when I become President, let’s focus first on migration and trade” with the leader of a friendly nation that is also dealing with the same issues vis a vis Central American migration.

Now if Biden was talking to the mullahs in Iran and telling them to just hang on a few more weeks, I think you’d have a stronger case for equivalency. 

[hobbes2702 12844]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In all seriousness, I think that a lot hinges on what a “dispute or controversy” is. Merely talking with any foreign leader about policy is not a violation. 
 

 Textually, there’s a lot of leeway but talking with Russia about sanctions and reciprocal diplomatic mission closures is very different from “when I become President, let’s focus first on migration and trade” with the leader of a friendly nation that is also dealing with the same issues vis a vis Central American migration.

Now if Biden was talking to the mullahs in Iran and telling them to just hang on a few more weeks, I think you’d have a stronger case for equivalency. 

Any attempt at equivalence between these two instances is obfuscation

[Sawbonz 27434]

He didn’t lie to the FBI because he was worried about a Logan Act charge. Anybody know who the last person indicated under the Logan Act was?