***Official Political Discussion Thread***

dwalk31 said:
How would he know whether they are guilty? They are being charged with things unrelated to him. Tax fraud, lying to the FBI, etc. Nothing to do with whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 election.
Click to expand...
Well he knew of at least one person's guilt according to himself. And in spite of knowing that Flynn lied to the FBI, during a scheduled WH meeting he ordered everyone to leave the room besides Comey and proceeded to ask him “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” regarding the criminal investigation of Michael Flynn.

Flynn resigned on February 13th 2017 at the president’s request. The official WH statement was that he misled the vice president.

On the 26th of January 2017, acting AG Sally Yates and a senior member of the DOJ national security division visited the WH and informed Don McGahn about Flynn's FBI interview.
The DOJ had received a detailed readout of the interview from the FBI, so Yates felt it was important to inform the WH that the Russians could have potential blackmail as the lying to the FBI centered around conversations about sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

According to Sean Spicer, McGahn immediately informed president Trump after the meeting.
The next day, Don McGahn called Sally Yates back to his office. According to her congressional testimony under oath, McGahn never personally told her that he had relayed the information to the president.
McGahn wanted to know if Flynn could be prosecuted and asked “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?”, to which Yates responded that it was more serious than that.
McGahn was concerned that taking action could interfere with the investigation but Yates assured him that the DOJ wouldn't be informing them and expect them to not be able to take any action.
He also wanted to see the underlying evidence, to which Yates agreed.

On January 30th, Yates called McGahn and told him he could come the next Monday morning and examine the underlying evidence.
Yates couldn't testify whether or not McGahn ever examined the evidence as she was fired by then for refusing to defend the travel ban executive order.

But either way, McGahn was made well aware that Flynn was in serious legal jeopardy, as well as being a potential blackmail target for the Russians.
And yet it took until February 13th for Flynn to resign at the president's request. The WH statement made no mention of his FBI interview, only that he misled the VP.

On February 14th, Trump and Comey had that one on one meeting about Flynn. The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has confirmed that meeting and conversation took place but insisted that it wasn't an order or suggestion.
““He didn’t direct him to do that. What he said to him was, ‘Can you give him a break?’” said Giuliani in July this year. He later backtracked those comments and denied any conversation about Flynn took place, adding that’s what the president would testify.

Trump later changed his story on Flynn’s firing and said he had to fire him because he lied to the FBI. Which means he was well aware Flynn was under criminal investigation when he told Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”
 
boris said:
Oh my. So much stupidity and hypocrisy to unpack.
Click to expand...


Our President Elect sure knows how to destroy libs with game winning tweets. Stand up and cry libs while our President Elect stunts on you.

marshall_hendersonauburn.gif
 
He just can't help himself.
Daily Caller interview with the president. Note the initial question. "Could you tell us where your thinking in is currently on the AG position? I know you're happy with Whitaker, do you have any names?"
Nothing in that question about the Mueller probe. And yet Trump just can't help but tie in the Mueller investigation to questions simply about Whitaker.
From praising the DOJ memo declaring Whitaker's appointment as constitutional, Trump jumps right into this:
"I knew him only as he pertained, you know, as he was with Jeff Sessions. And, um, you know, look, as far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had. It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation. And you know, it’s very interesting because when you talk about not Senate confirmed, well, Mueller’s not Senate confirmed."
Click to expand...


266043d7a44bf0f7b79345eaabfd6d15.png

537a50c5f3e8f9a8f673d2f660849808.png
 
Belgium said:
Well he knew of at least one person's guilt according to himself. And in spite of knowing that Flynn lied to the FBI, during a scheduled WH meeting he ordered everyone to leave the room besides Comey and proceeded to ask him “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” regarding the criminal investigation of Michael Flynn.

Flynn resigned on February 13th 2017 at the president’s request. The official WH statement was that he misled the vice president.

On the 26th of January 2017, acting AG Sally Yates and a senior member of the DOJ national security division visited the WH and informed Don McGahn about Flynn's FBI interview.
The DOJ had received a detailed readout of the interview from the FBI, so Yates felt it was important to inform the WH that the Russians could have potential blackmail as the lying to the FBI centered around conversations about sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

According to Sean Spicer, McGahn immediately informed president Trump after the meeting.
The next day, Don McGahn called Sally Yates back to his office. According to her congressional testimony under oath, McGahn never personally told her that he had relayed the information to the president.
McGahn wanted to know if Flynn could be prosecuted and asked “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?”, to which Yates responded that it was more serious than that.
McGahn was concerned that taking action could interfere with the investigation but Yates assured him that the DOJ wouldn't be informing them and expect them to not be able to take any action.
He also wanted to see the underlying evidence, to which Yates agreed.

On January 30th, Yates called McGahn and told him he could come the next Monday morning and examine the underlying evidence.
Yates couldn't testify whether or not McGahn ever examined the evidence as she was fired by then for refusing to defend the travel ban executive order.

But either way, McGahn was made well aware that Flynn was in serious legal jeopardy, as well as being a potential blackmail target for the Russians.
And yet it took until February 13th for Flynn to resign at the president's request. The WH statement made no mention of his FBI interview, only that he misled the VP.

On February 14th, Trump and Comey had that one on one meeting about Flynn. The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has confirmed that meeting and conversation took place but insisted that it wasn't an order or suggestion.
““He didn’t direct him to do that. What he said to him was, ‘Can you give him a break?’” said Giuliani in July this year. He later backtracked those comments and denied any conversation about Flynn took place, adding that’s what the president would testify.

Trump later changed his story on Flynn’s firing and said he had to fire him because he lied to the FBI. Which means he was well aware Flynn was under criminal investigation when he told Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with the alleged collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election by the Trump campaign?
 
dwalk31 said:
What does this have to do with the alleged collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election by the Trump campaign?
Click to expand...
I simply picked up on the "how would he know whether they were guilty?" part. In Flynn's case, he did know he was guilty.
 
dwalk31 said:
At least you’re honest about it. Better than the majority in this thread when it comes to the issue of Russia collusion. It is paying political dividends for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

whos not being honest about it? whether you believe it was a grand scheme orchestrated by trump and putin together or a russian clandestine opperation, Russia has got finger prints all over the trump campaign and thats what i think most people here believe. The extent of it all is what we want to find out from the investigation. Either trump had no idea what went on (while members of his campaign met with russians under his nose) and he looks bad, or he had direct involvement and he looks bad. Im all for him looking bad but its also important to see how russia has infiltrated the american political system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
9K
chezzer10
chezzer10
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
datznasty
datznasty

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom