EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

Annachie wrote:Basic law.

An NDA does not cover illegal activities.

Annachie wrote:Basic law.

An NDA does not cover illegal activities.

smr wrote:Bingo! Who knows where the bodies are buried with the previous administration. How do you get that secret evidence out into the light or the public's eye. Two people in the previous administration that should be shaking in fear...John Brennan and James Clapper. Yes they are being targeted just they are only high level foot soldiers or company commanders. Obama was the King but he has no real power other than his old allies. The power behind the throne is the true target(s) but who are the powers behind the throne(s).

Annachie wrote:Basic law.

An NDA does not cover illegal activities.

smr wrote:Bingo! Who knows where the bodies are buried with the previous administration. How do you get that secret evidence out into the light or the public's eye. Two people in the previous administration that should be shaking in fear...John Brennan and James Clapper. Yes they are being targeted just they are only high level foot soldiers or company commanders. Obama was the King but he has no real power other than his old allies. The power behind the throne is the true target(s) but who are the powers behind the throne(s).

smr wrote:Clearly Judge Sullivan wanted to rule in General Flynn's favor.

Judge Sullivan: “I’m not hiding my disgust, my distain for this criminal offense.”

Says he can’t guarantee he’s going to avoid incarceration. Gives Flynn yet another opportunity to speak with his lawyers.

Noting that he could not hide “my disgust, my disdain” for Flynn’s conduct, District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan — who was appointed to various judicial posts by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton — harshly criticized the former national security advisor, hinting that he might ignore Mueller’s recommendation of a light sentence because of the aggravating circumstances.

Sullivan seemed particularly offended that Flynn had lied to FBI agents while on the grounds of the White House. Flynn’s conduct, Sullivan said, had undermined everything that the flag in the courtroom stands for. The judge also criticized Flynn for working for the Turkish government without registering, and at one point asked Mueller’s staffers if they had considered bringing treason charges. (They had not, a prosecutor answered.)

The judge then postponed the sentencing to March 13th. So what is General Flynn trying to accomplish. Something that is hidden is motivating Flynn because I just do not understand what the General is doing.

Michael Everett wrote:

smr wrote:Bingo! Who knows where the bodies are buried with the previous administration. How do you get that secret evidence out into the light or the public's eye. Two people in the previous administration that should be shaking in fear...John Brennan and James Clapper. Yes they are being targeted just they are only high level foot soldiers or company commanders. Obama was the King but he has no real power other than his old allies. The power behind the throne is the true target(s) but who are the powers behind the throne(s).

Ummmhmmm... and for those of us who are not American, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for context and background here. Who is Brennan? Who is Clapper? Who do they work for? Why should they be worried? Why do you confuse the terms President and King? Does the President really have a legal Throne or is it a Porcelain one...
...actually, strike that last one. Trump often Tweets on his Porcelain Throne. Must be where the President On His Throne meme came from.
Also, that first sentence really should have been a question rather than a statement since as the latter it implies that no-one knows where any bodies (metaphorical or otherwise) are buried.
In fact, at least three of those statements should have ended in "?".
Smr, get yourself a new keyboard. Judging from this post, the one you have is either damaged or certain buttons need cleaning...

smr wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper

Excellent questions to be answered with the ongoing investigations. By the way I should have poised that as a question on who knows where the bodies are buried. Let's restate a couple of obvious points. HRC had a private email server that was hacked by at least 6 foreign governments. She had people that deleted those emails that were given immunity from prosecution. Restating another obvious point that the NSA has a copy of all emails. By law, they can not be used to prosecute her. However, if a private citizen, foreign government, or private corporation were to disclose this information. The government can use the evidence as long as they verify the information. A very fine and distinctive legal point. General Flynn was the former head of the DIA He was in the Obama administration and knows where the bodies are buried. Michael, I tend to ask the (right) questions that the answers if they are lies are still telling or revealing.

Now E, be sure to qoute Alan in context rather than out of context. I will just say "material".from Alan himself on Fox and Cnn shows.

The subject of Professor Dershowitz's dishonesty — for the purpose of this essay — is General Michael Flynn's lies to FBI agents and his subsequent guilty plea for lying under 18 U.S.C. section 1001. Professor Dershowitz has asserted, repeatedly, that Flynn did not violate Section 1001 because his lies were not "material" — that is, meaningful. He claims that the lies were not "material" because the FBI knew at the time Flynn was lying, and was not fooled.

[...]

So: Professor Dershowitz' proposition is that a lie is not material under Section 1001 if the government actor lied to already knows the truth. Every court to consider this argument — and there have been many — has flatly rejected it. See United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App'x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already "ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement"); United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013) ("A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false."); United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995) "It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false." ("The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false."); United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)("A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false."); United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976) ("Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.")United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018) ("Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)