Mueller recommends no jail time for flynn. flynn must have spilled his guts.

[friendly fred]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;106112706 3]Have I missed someone who did?

The proof none of his supporters condemn his lies is none of his supporters condemn his lies.

Did you really need me to explain that to you?

You show supporters condemning his lies. Simple. Right?

And I'll also point out that you finding even 1000 examples is statistically insignificant. So let's get back on topic of Flynn spilling his guts



Maybe they haven't all been heard from yet concerning Trump's lies, rendering your point at best premature.

But I'll condemn his lies if that makes you feel better.

Mueller's lies, do you condemn them?

I certainly do.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Justifiable?
Your statement builds on the idea the FISA is illegal. It's not illegal.
Debate your off-topic, what if fantasy someplace else.

you do know that prosecutorial misconduct by knowingly misrepresenting the evidence is a crime? and it tends to invalidate evidence and convictions..


[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;106112706[SIZE=3]3][/SIZE]

Have I missed someone who did?

The proof none of his supporters condemn his lies is none of his supporters condemn his lies.

Did you really need me to explain that to you?

You show supporters condemning his lies. Simple. Right?

And I'll also point out that you finding even 1000 examples is statistically insignificant. So let's get back on topic of Flynn spilling his guts


Flynn has nothing to spill.

[Munchmasterman]

Here is your question.

"a question if you don't mind my asking, do you think the fisa warrant and the special prosecutor based on a faulty evidence is justifiable?"

Which FISA warrant based on faulty evidence are you talking about? I haven't heard about any proven to use faulty evidence.

Now I know trying to supply a link to back your statement is s scary thing but you should get right back on the "Not lying" horse when you fall off.

So what illegal FISA warrant is your question about?

Flynn's statements were caught on a tap that is on the Russian's phone. Because we tap the Russian's phones.

Because they're Russian.


Or have I misunderstood you?

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

you haven't answered the question.... that is if you can get past your hatred of Trump as away to avoid answering this question.


Its just a simple Yes, or No answer.

[Munchmasterman]

[Yes I do.
What has that got do with this?

Is that the new tactic? You imply a crime and then leap to the next level for stupid and assholish questions?

QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1061127093]you do know that prosecutorial misconduct by knowingly misrepresenting the evidence is a crime? and it tends to invalidate evidence and convictions..

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman;106112706[SIZE=3

3][/SIZE]

Have I missed someone who did?

The proof none of his supporters condemn his lies is none of his supporters condemn his lies.

Did you really need me to explain that to you?

You show supporters condemning his lies. Simple. Right?

And I'll also point out that you finding even 1000 examples is statistically insignificant. So let's get back on topic of Flynn spilling his guts


Flynn has nothing to spill.

[Munchmasterman]

Just asking for some proof these aren't the made up claims of piece of shit liars.

Is that asking too much?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Justifiable?
Your statement builds on the idea the FISA is illegal. It's not illegal.
Debate your off-topic, what if fantasy someplace else.

its on topic.

nor is it a what if fantasy. this has real world consequences.

you apparently believe the faulty FISA warrant was justifiable.

you just admitted to this by telling me to take a hike.

saw your later posts after I posted this. I've read your comments.

wow, you really have blinders on FBI misconduct. your position is that the fisa warrant was justifiable no matter what.

the problem was with how the evidence on the so-called russian dossier on trump was obtained.

From a number of sources, that it came from clinton camp who used a former british spy to work on opposition intel and deliver this evidence to the FBI. you had all these intel agencies saying that evidence was "dodgy" and couldn't be proven.

as waco, lexus & IB pointed out,

Links have been put ad nausea-um. putting one up won't do me any good as it won't change your mind. you'll just dismiss them as fake news.

[dilbert firestorm]

btw, I'm done with this thread.

[Munchmasterman]

What lies?[QUOTE=friendly fred;1061127088]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Have I missed someone who did?

The proof none of his supporters condemn his lies is none of his supporters condemn his lies.

Did you really need me to explain that to you?

You show supporters condemning his lies. Simple. Right?

And I'll also point out that you finding even 1000 examples is statistically insignificant. So let's get back on topic of Flynn spilling his guts




Maybe they haven't all been heard from yet concerning Trump's lies, rendering your point at best premature.

But I'll condemn his lies if that makes you feel better.

Mueller's lies, do you condemn them?

I certainly do.

[Munchmasterman]

That's a quick way out. You claim the FISA warrant is tainted. It's not. Not according to the judges who decide. That's why this is a "what if".

The only link you can post that will change my mind is one that says the ruling has been changed.

Until that happens, your claim is false. Period.

And like I've pointed out. the wiretap that caught Flynn isn't even the same warrant you believe is illegal. That's public knowledge. Flynn never considered an appeal based on the wiretap.

I have always advocated only legal tactics being used. There's nothing illegal in this story

Instead of a link, you cite 3 people. Like trump asking putin if he interfered in the elections. "Not me." he said. Then trump says, "I believe him."
You citing waco, lexus, and ib is one of the funniest statements I've ever seen on here.
They have cherrypicked, lied, misrepresented, and quoted out of context the whole time they have been on here.

Show me an example of me calling something fake news that wasn't.

Something the trumpys do all the time.

You're done with thread? It's about time.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

its on topic.

nor is it a what if fantasy. this has real world consequences.

you apparently believe the faulty FISA warrant was justifiable.

you just admitted to this by telling me to take a hike.

saw your later posts after I posted this. I've read your comments.

wow, you really have blinders on FBI misconduct. your position is that the fisa warrant was justifiable no matter what.

the problem was with how the evidence on the so-called russian dossier on trump was obtained.

From a number of sources, that it came from clinton camp who used a former british spy to work on opposition intel and deliver this evidence to the FBI. you had all these intel agencies saying that evidence was "dodgy" and couldn't be proven.

as waco, lexus & IB pointed out,

Links have been put ad nausea-um. putting one up won't do me any good as it won't change your mind. you'll just dismiss them as fake news.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

That's a quick way out. You claim the FISA warrant is tainted. It's not. Not according to the judges who decide. That's why this is a "what if".

The only link you can post that will change my mind is one that says the ruling has been changed.

Until that happens, your claim is false. Period.

And like I've pointed out. the wiretap that caught Flynn isn't even the same warrant you believe is illegal. That's public knowledge. Flynn never considered an appeal based on the wiretap.

I have always advocated only legal tactics being used. There's nothing illegal in this story

Instead of a link, you cite 3 people. Like trump asking putin if he interfered in the elections. "Not me." he said. Then trump says, "I believe him."
You citing waco, lexus, and ib is one of the funniest statements I've ever seen on here.
They have cherrypicked, lied, misrepresented, and quoted out of context the whole time they have been on here.

Show me an example of me calling something fake news that wasn't.

Something the trumpys do all the time.

You're done with thread? It's about time.

The only "Fake News" here is what you regurgitate.

Comey testified Friday that FISA warrants targeted four American citizens. Only two of whom are known to the public at large.

So, your conjecture that Flynn wasn't targeted is based on wishful thinking -- you do not in fact know.

Meanwhile, it's already been reported that info gathered by the FBI with it's illegal FISA warrants was used to coerce Flynn: "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree!"

Mueller's investigations will die from Comey's poison pill.

Contreras sits on the FISA court. He was assigned to that court in May 2016, months before the FISA warrant was granted to the FBI to spy on members of the Trump campaign and the Trump transition.

It is believed that this surveillance contributed to the evidence that compelled Flynn to enter a plea for making misleading statements to federal investigators. Contreras accepted that plea as the presiding judge of the Mueller/Flynn case on December 2nd. Five days later, Contreras was recused from the case in which he had just accepted a plea.

(Washington Times)

[LordBeaverbrook]

OMG, this thread is rich. Eccie politics hasn't changed in three years.

First off, who has ever heard of a FISA warrant evidence being "invalidated"? They are secret and the evidence gathered is rarely used in court proceedings and always upheld whenit is used. FISA in theory permits a judge to give the defendant access to the underlying affidavit(s) and other materials supporting the original FISA application, this authority is never exercised in practice. Suppression motions instead always are resolved on an in camera, ex parte basis.

Second, those who pled guilty, all but Manafort in one case, cannot appeal (because there is a waiver of appeal and only except their sentence for 1yr or proof of complete innocence, not technicalities. Those have to be brought up at trial and there wasn't a trial) so the point is moot. Only Manafort was convicted in one case and none of those charges had anything to do with FISA.

So, no, all the speculation about "fruit of the poisonous tree" is not even applicable even it it weren't total BS.



LB

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

OMG, this thread is rich. Eccie politics hasn't changed in three years.

First off, who has ever heard of a FISA warrant evidence being "invalidated"? They are secret and the evidence gathered is rarely used in court proceedings and always upheld whenit is used. FISA in theory permits a judge to give the defendant access to the underlying affidavit(s) and other materials supporting the original FISA application, this authority is never exercised in practice. Suppression motions instead always are resolved on an in camera, ex parte basis.

Second, those who pled guilty, all but Manafort in one case, cannot appeal (because there is a waiver of appeal and only except their sentence for 1yr or proof of complete innocence, not technicalities. Those have to be brought up at trial and there wasn't a trial) so the point is moot. Only Manafort was convicted in one case and none of those charges had anything to do with FISA.

So, no, all the speculation about "fruit of the poisonous tree" is not even applicable even it it weren't total BS.



LB

You'd be more than a little wrong. It's unconstitutional to violate the civil liberties of any American citizen -- including GEN Flynn and Carter Page. The FISA warrants were illegally and fraudulently obtained (Comey admitted Friday that the Steele dossier had not been verified as mandated by the FBI's own "Wood's Procedures"). Hence, the evidence Mueller is hanging his indictments on was gathered by use of warrants that were illegally obtained: "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree".

[Munchmasterman]

Read much? I didn't say he wasn't targeted. I said he wasn't busted by the supposed illegal FISA warrant. I said he was busted by the tap on the Russian phone. Which he was.

Flynn isn't challenging his conviction. It seems strange you would. Especially when you don't really know the details.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The only "Fake News" here is what you regurgitate.

Comey testified Friday that FISA warrants targeted four American citizens. Only two of whom are known to the public at large.

So, your conjecture that Flynn wasn't targeted is based on wishful thinking -- you do not in fact know.

Meanwhile, it's already been reported that info gathered by the FBI with it's illegal FISA warrants was used to coerce Flynn: "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree!"

Mueller's investigations will die from Comey's poison pill.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Read much? I didn't say he wasn't targeted. I said he wasn't busted by the supposed illegal FISA warrant. I said he was busted by the tap on the Russian phone. Which he was.

Flynn isn't challenging his conviction. It seems strange you would. Especially when you don't really know the details.

Read much?

The article cited says info gathered by the FBI using the illegal FISA warrants allowing the FBI to spy on American citizens was used to coerce Flynn into a plea bargain.

One thing I'm certain of is that I know more factual details than anyone harboring lib-retarded, anti-Trump views.

[Munchmasterman]

This is the third time we've covered this. They bring up the same stuff. ib will continue to tell us why the courts etc are all wrong and he is right. The best legal minds that will take trump's money haven't thought of what ib claims.

And on it goes.

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

OMG, this thread is rich. Eccie politics hasn't changed in three years.

First off, who has ever heard of a FISA warrant evidence being "invalidated"? They are secret and the evidence gathered is rarely used in court proceedings and always upheld whenit is used. FISA in theory permits a judge to give the defendant access to the underlying affidavit(s) and other materials supporting the original FISA application, this authority is never exercised in practice. Suppression motions instead always are resolved on an in camera, ex parte basis.

Second, those who pled guilty, all but Manafort in one case, cannot appeal (because there is a waiver of appeal and only except their sentence for 1yr or proof of complete innocence, not technicalities. Those have to be brought up at trial and there wasn't a trial) so the point is moot. Only Manafort was convicted in one case and none of those charges had anything to do with FISA.

So, no, all the speculation about "fruit of the poisonous tree" is not even applicable even it it weren't total BS.



LB