Are Barr/Trump slowly unraveling the Michael Flynn prosecution?

[UberNeuman]

That sounds like projecting to me. I’ve had my mind changed several times from information posted here on this forum, I’ve also had to adjust my opinion because of arguments made here as well.

So really you mean that you post here to be heard and to to hear and that your opinions aren’t changeable.

It isn't painfully obvious at this point?

 

[fskimospy]

Not worth getting upset about it. Just wait until Flynn walks, post a short gloat, and watch the fireworks.
Always remember, nothing here matters. Nothing will be changed by the arguments or opinions expressed, it's just a shouting society. Have some fun with it.

I would say it’s a pretty sad day if anyone gloats over such obvious corruption.

This is the sickness that’s killing America today, that some people view the subversion and corruption of the DOJ as something to gloat about instead of something to condemn, all because that corruption helped someone on their team.

 

[zinfamous]

I would say it’s a pretty sad day if anyone gloats over such obvious corruption.

This is the sickness that’s killing America today, that some people view the subversion and corruption of the DOJ as something to gloat about instead of something to condemn, all because that corruption helped someone on their team.

it's team sportsing and the people cheering it all on are the ones that lose the most. They seem to love it, though. I don't get it.

I'd pity them, but the rest of us get caught up in their terrible decision-making.

 

[UberNeuman]

it's team sportsing and the people cheering it all on are the ones that lose the most. They seem to love it, though. I don't get it.

I'd pity them, but the rest of us get caught up in their terrible decision-making.

It's all about hurting everyone that isn't them. Until it starts hitting them. Until then, it's HUHWHATIDONTKNOW. Some call them "deplorable" - I call them for what they are - traitors.

 

[HumblePie]

What’s a 302 and what is its purpose?

A 302 is the official report of an FBI interview. There is where the agent is suppose to list what was asked and what was responded as well as what related to the criminal investigation. It is also suppose to note non-verbal items if the interview is not video taped. Its purpose is to be the official record of what transpired in the interview to be admitted to a court of law for presumption of evidence in a criminal case. The 302 for Flynn at the time contained no mention of the agent asking about sanctions nor Flynn making a statement about them. Only about the expulsions. It also made no mention either agent felt that Flynn had attempted to lie or deceive them during the interview. Mis-statements are not lies unless the person intended to lie. Part of the interview process is to see if the person being interviewed with say something to incriminate themselves or others as part of the investigation. The 302 is drafted, submitted and reviewed for changes after the agent themselves gets debriefed on the interview to make sure nothing was missed before the final form is submitted. Both the initial draft and subsequent ones are meant to be retained, but for some reason the 302 for the Flynn investigation is only the final draft and none of the proceeding ones for whatever reason. Changes to the initial draft have to list their reasons as well for the changes as it is changing an officially submitted government document used for evidence. Again something not done with the Flynn 302. That is the best I can explain it based on everything I researched about what an FBI 302 purpose is.

 

[HumblePie]

That sounds like projecting to me. I’ve had my mind changed several times from information posted here on this forum, I’ve also had to adjust my opinion because of arguments made here as well.

So really you mean that you post here to be heard and not to hear and that your opinions aren’t changeable.

You have, and I remember seeing it with some of the conversations we've had in older discussions. But you have to admit there are several people here that can only be labeled paid shills for their cause. They don't argue civilly at all. They use nothing but logic fallacies for their arguments or ad hominen attacks. I've witnessed there being more shills over the years since I've been on this site from the beginning. It is the reason sites that used to be used for political discussion have devolved. Have you nee to r/WorldPolitics recently? At one point it was almost a place you could have a discussion. No more. The forum devolved because partly how reddit works, and the shills/bot accounts were out in droves.

 

[UberNeuman]

You have, and I remember seeing it with some of the conversations we've had in older discussions. But you have to admit there are several people here that can only be labeled paid shills for their cause. They don't argue civilly at all. They use nothing but logic fallacies for their arguments or ad hominen attacks. I've witnessed there being more shills over the years since I've been on this site from the beginning. It is the reason sites that used to be used for political discussion have devolved. Have you nee to r/WorldPolitics recently? At one point it was almost a place you could have a discussion. No more. The forum devolved because partly how reddit works, and the shills/bot accounts were out in droves.

Welcome to Flop Sweat 101.

 

[interchange]

@HumblePie is the definition of not worth your time.

 

[Greenman]

I would say it’s a pretty sad day if anyone gloats over such obvious corruption.

This is the sickness that’s killing America today, that some people view the subversion and corruption of the DOJ as something to gloat about instead of something to condemn, all because that corruption helped someone on their team.

That you voice an opinion as though it were fact doesn't make it so. That you make grandiose proclamations doesn't make you morally superior.

 

[fskimospy]

That you voice an opinion as though it were fact doesn't make it so. That you make grandiose proclamations doesn't make you morally superior.

The attorney general is dropping charges against a politically connected ally of the president who pleaded guilty to the charges twice and in the DOJ brief arguing in favor of dismissal misrepresented the evidence compiled by the FBI, as told by the person who compiled it. This is part of a larger pattern where the AG has misrepresented the findings of the special counsel in politically convenient ways to mislead the courts and the public, and how the DOJ has intervened on the behalf of another Trump ally to reduce his sentence.

If that is not absolutely brazen, unprecedented corruption to you, you are living in a fantasy world. It is simply mind boggling to me how partisanship has gotten this strong.

 

[brycejones]

The attorney general is dropping charges against a politically connected ally of the president who pleaded guilty to the charges twice and in the DOJ brief arguing in favor of dismissal misrepresented the evidence compiled by the FBI, as told by the person who compiled it. This is part of a larger pattern where the AG has misrepresented the findings of the special counsel in politically convenient ways to mislead the courts and the public, and how the DOJ has intervened on the behalf of another Trump ally to reduce his sentence.

If that is not absolutely brazen, unprecedented corruption to you, you are living in a fantasy world. It is simply mind boggling to me how partisanship has gotten this strong.

You just forced greenman to look up at least 20 words he doesn’t know.

 

[HumblePie]

The attorney general is dropping charges against a politically connected ally of the president who pleaded guilty to the charges twice and in the DOJ brief arguing in favor of dismissal misrepresented the evidence compiled by the FBI, as told by the person who compiled it. This is part of a larger pattern where the AG has misrepresented the findings of the special counsel in politically convenient ways to mislead the courts and the public, and how the DOJ has intervened on the behalf of another Trump ally to reduce his sentence.

If that is not absolutely brazen, unprecedented corruption to you, you are living in a fantasy world. It is simply mind boggling to me how partisanship has gotten this strong.

Because you want to take the opinions of the legal arguments of the case in favor of those that side with you politically only and any expert opinions from people you disagree with politically are to be ignored or attacked is why you are a shill. You use the same logic fallacy over and over. You don't even try to think maybe the original experts you so desperately want to believe are the corrupt ones in this case, no it has to be the others guys on the other side. You are never willing to hear any argument that doesn't fit your narrow scope of what you perceive to be reality. Anything outside that scope is to be attacked and made fun of.

 

[dank69]

Because you want to take the opinions of the legal arguments of the case in favor of those that side with you politically only and any expert opinions from people you disagree with politically are to be ignored or attacked is why you are a shill. You use the same logic fallacy over and over. You don't even try to think maybe the original experts you so desperately want to believe are the corrupt ones in this case, no it has to be the others guys on the other side. You are never willing to hear any argument that doesn't fit your narrow scope of what you perceive to be reality. Anything outside that scope is to be attacked and made fun of.

I am curious about which logical fallacy you think he is using?

 

[HumblePie]

I am curious about which logical fallacy you think he is using?

fskimospy tends to favor these logic fallacies in all his posts:

Ad hominem (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#adhominem)

He uses this often. When anyone cites a source he doesn't like that has a different opinion he attacks both the source in a derisive manner as well the person citing that source. He rarely actually tries to formulate an argument against the claims of the source. When he does he tends to do it with the following three fallacies:

Strawman (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#strawman)

fskimospy has a huge habit of using strawman arguments. See his many responses to my posts. I'll state one thing and he either tends to extrapolate that into things I didn't say to make an argument, or conflates it with other things not said to make an argument. He does this constantly. I can say that I see him do this often with others as well.

Appeal to Authority (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#adverecundiam)

As in this post he wants to constantly cite his legal expert opinions and use ad hominem attacks on legal expert sources he disagrees with. He does this one very often from my person experiences in past arguments I have seen on this forum.

Bandwagon (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#bandwagon)

This is the last one he likes to use often. He has already done it in this thread with "all his legal experts" that happen to share the opinion he shares on this subject. It's 4 out of 5 dentists approve that Michael Flynn should be guilty!

 

[fskimospy]

What's weird is I've literally explained to him how he's misusing those logical fallacies multiple times and yet he still hasn't learned.

This may relate to how in this very thread he's argued two mutually exclusive positions and then said he hasn't been wrong once.

lol.

 

[dank69]

fskimospy tends to favor these logic fallacies in all his posts:

Ad hominem (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#adhominem)

He uses this often. When anyone cites a source he doesn't like that has a different opinion he attacks both the source in a derisive manner as well the person citing that source. He rarely actually tries to formulate an argument against the claims of the source. When he does he tends to do it with the following three fallacies:

Strawman (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#strawman)

fskimospy has a huge habit of using strawman arguments. See his many responses to my posts. I'll state one thing and he either tends to extrapolate that into things I didn't say to make an argument, or conflates it with other things not said to make an argument. He does this constantly. I can say that I see him do this often with others as well.

Appeal to Authority (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#adverecundiam)

As in this post he wants to constantly cite his legal expert opinions and use ad hominem attacks on legal expert sources he disagrees with. He does this one very often from my person experiences in past arguments I have seen on this forum.

Bandwagon (https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#bandwagon)

This is the last one he likes to use often. He has already done it in this thread with "all his legal experts" that happen to share the opinion he shares on this subject. It's 4 out of 5 dentists approve that Michael Flynn should be guilty!

Thanks. I suspected you had no idea what you were talking about. I just wanted confirmation.

Ad hominem - I see him refute your points (and others' points) with data, statistics, and expert opinion all the time. You seem to think that throwing in some ad hominem negates the rest. This is not the case, and is actually another fallacy: argument from fallacy or fallacy fallacy. The assumption that if an argument contains a fallacy then the conclusion must be false. For example, if you said the earth is flat and I said no you idiot the earth is not flat, just because I attacked you doesn't mean the earth is flat. It is absolutely imperative that you examine the source when you are deferring to them as an "expert." When two experts disagree, what else should the layman do? Throw up their hands and declare "I guess we'll never know"? Agree to disagree? Alternative facts? No, you examine any available information about the two experts to determine if either of them has a motive to lie. Perhaps one of the experts is being paid by tobacco, firearms, fossil fuel, etc. etc. Once an "expert" gains a reputation as a paid shill, there is no reason to pay attention to that person ever again. That does not mean everything they say from then on is wrong, but you can no longer take them at their word, and everything they say should be independently verified. If it has not been independently verified, whatever they say is valueless. You also need to verify their credentials as subject matter experts. You are just mad because you didn't understand any of this and so when your sources are dismissed it looks like magical thinking.

Strawman - you are conflating this with reductio ad absurdum. When you state something, it is our duty (and yours) to examine the logic used for problems. This includes extrapolating the implications, being careful to avoid slippery-slope arguments, and using analogies to apply the same logic to similar concepts, in order to find the flaws. Yes, that results in rewording your original statement into something you literally did not say. Your problem is that you don't really understand any of this, so when someone shows you that accepting your logic would lead to absurd results, you call that a strawman when it isn't. "I didn't say x!" That's right, you didn't say x, but if what you said is true then x must also be true. Since x is clearly not true, then what you said cannot be true. "I didn't say x!" <- this is when you can fuck right off.

Appeal to authority and bandwagon - this is you not understanding when these things are appropriate and when they are not. This is also you not understanding that when 97% of experts agree that you should be extremely skeptical of that other 3% unless they are bringing some seriously irrefutable evidence, not just opinion, and if that were the case then the 97% would be altering their world view pretty quickly. This is also you not understanding sample size with your 4 out of 5 quip. This is also you confusing authority with expertise.

 

[interchange]

The attorney general is dropping charges against a politically connected ally of the president who pleaded guilty to the charges twice and in the DOJ brief arguing in favor of dismissal misrepresented the evidence compiled by the FBI, as told by the person who compiled it. This is part of a larger pattern where the AG has misrepresented the findings of the special counsel in politically convenient ways to mislead the courts and the public, and how the DOJ has intervened on the behalf of another Trump ally to reduce his sentence.

If that is not absolutely brazen, unprecedented corruption to you, you are living in a fantasy world. It is simply mind boggling to me how partisanship has gotten this strong.

To me, the trouble really is the fact that the charges were brought by the special counsel whose entire purpose was to remove those conflicts of interest. You do that, you live with their decisions. Having the power to walk them back is flatly enabling corruption. It's also a big red flag that you get to appoint the person to do the review and make all the recommendations internally without oversight. Bear in mind also the IG already looked at this and didn't find grounds to drop the charges. With anything as complicated and sensitive as this, it's easy to pick things out and paint a narrative that is half-true at best. With the Trump admin, there has been a clear pattern of firing those which try to challenge corruption and rewarding of those who come to the conclusions Trump likes.

 

[fskimospy]

To me, the trouble really is the fact that the charges were brought by the special counsel whose entire purpose was to remove those conflicts of interest. You do that, you live with their decisions. Having the power to walk them back is flatly enabling corruption. It's also a big red flag that you get to appoint the person to do the review and make all the recommendations internally without oversight. Bear in mind also the IG already looked at this and didn't find grounds to drop the charges. With anything as complicated and sensitive as this, it's easy to pick things out and paint a narrative that is half-true at best. With the Trump admin, there has been a clear pattern of firing those which try to challenge corruption and rewarding of those who come to the conclusions Trump likes.

Yes I strongly agree and what’s worse is they haven’t even been particularly sneaky about it. It’s mostly out in the open which makes people insisting this isn’t corrupt even more distressing.

 

[zinfamous]

All that I have learned here is that HumblePie's name is hilariously non-reflective of his posts.

 

[cytg111]

Robert Barnes is a defense attorney. If people pay him then he defends them. Alex Jones was part of Infowars, but Robert Barnes is not. He was also brought in late to the defense after Alex fired his first set of attorneys. Robert was let go later by Alex because of the outcome of evidence discovery a short time later. Alex claims Robert stalled and vice versa. What the hell does any of that have to do with Robert's legal abilities in knowing laws and his success at winning cases? He was only his attorney for a short time, and until recently the lawyer hired was Norm Pattis for the Connecticut case while Wade Jefferies was defending him in Texas. Norm recently withdrew as legal attorney a couple of weeks ago. It's Alex that is the nutcase not the attorneys for trying to do a job.

So this was the “reloaded” turd... whats next Diarrhea Revolutions?

 

[hal2kilo]

The attorney general is dropping charges against a politically connected ally of the president who pleaded guilty to the charges twice and in the DOJ brief arguing in favor of dismissal misrepresented the evidence compiled by the FBI, as told by the person who compiled it. This is part of a larger pattern where the AG has misrepresented the findings of the special counsel in politically convenient ways to mislead the courts and the public, and how the DOJ has intervened on the behalf of another Trump ally to reduce his sentence.

If that is not absolutely brazen, unprecedented corruption to you, you are living in a fantasy world. It is simply mind boggling to me how partisanship has gotten this strong.

Interesting article on this very subject.

How Bill Barr deceitfully rewrites history to give Trump what he craves

The AG plays footsie with “Obamagate” and helps Moscow.

www.motherjones.com

 

[fskimospy]

So for all those ‘Barr isn’t corrupt, the Obama FBI was’ people, well, this is awkward.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262828767753322497

 

[hal2kilo]

Loyalty to Trump has it's benefits. How much more corruption can people tolerate.

Prosecutor under fire for court filings benefiting Trump allies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn will become DEA chief, report says

Tim Shea, the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., signed court filings that benefited Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, allies of President Trump.

www.cnbc.com

 

[VRAMdemon]

Republicans are now poised to subpoena former Obama administration officials. Apparently they have forgotten that Republicans told us that nobody has to respond to Congressional subpoenas anymore, so I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[hal2kilo]

Republicans are now poised to subpoena former Obama administration officials. Apparently they have forgotten that Republicans told us that nobody has to respond to Congressional subpoenas anymore, so I'm not sure what the point is.

Tell the Pubs to pound sand. Tie them up in court like...a like...