Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:  See my reply to Russ, I've been working this thread from the bottom up.  The texts on Strzok's phone from his time with the Special Counsel's Office were absolutely purposefully deleted.  See the December AIG report I linked to in my reply to Russ.   Were they illegally deleted?  Not that I know of.

Still - consider this: Strozok was quietly fired from the SCO team when his unprofessional texts to Page began to become public.  The texts that got him booted from the SCO team were sent before the election, before the SCO investigation, and on an earlier phone.  The earlier texts show this guy to be a partisan and obviously it has bled into his work, and Mueller had no choice but to boot Strzok off of the SCO team when he discovered this.

So, Strzok is booted from the SCO team because of his unprofessional texting behavior.  Then, what does the SCO records custodian do when Strzok turns in his SCO phone?  She reviews the texts, says there is nothing here, and resets it.  That is bad form and embarrassing to the FBI.  Obviously Flynn chose to take the plea deal, and obviously he was guilty because he admits it.  That does not give the FBI a pass in my view.  If I ever have the misfortune of being prosecuted for a political crime using investigations undertaken by an agent who is (A) known to be partisan against me by his earlier texts, and (B) has conveniently had his texts from the time of his investigation of me deleted, I'll be calling for dismissal of the charges based upon destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence.

The above is all my own thinking, and I could be full of it.  Like I said to Russ, I have not dug deep.  But I trust Dershowitz more than I trust most other commentators, and the texts we are talking about bother him too.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

To say this is deep in the weeds is an understatement. There is no scenario of any set of texts that makes Flynn innocent of blatant lies to the FBI on important national security issues. No set of text messages nullify a signed letter of intent from Donald Trump to build a Trump Moscow hotel, pursuing it right up to the election. No set of texts can change the fact that time after time, Trump has sided against our own intelligence community (and allies) and has sided with our enemies, the most recent example being pulling out of Syria - without telling a sole in his own administration.

Did the cops baton a perp against police rules? Maybe. That does not make the perp innocent.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

To say this is deep in the weeds is an understatement. There is no scenario of any set of texts that makes Flynn innocent of blatant lies to the FBI on important national security issues. No set of text messages nullify a signed letter of intent from Donald Trump to build a Trump Moscow hotel, pursuing it right up to the election. No set of texts can change the fact that time after time, Trump has sided against our own intelligence community (and allies) and has sided with our enemies, the most recent example being pulling out of Syria - without telling a sole in his own administration.

Did the cops baton a perp against police rules? Maybe. That does not make the perp innocent.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I don't believe they did anything wrong to Flynn. I was trying to point out that even if they did, Flynn, as a high official of our government, is guilty as hell and should be held to the highest standard possible. It is obvious that Trumps greatest defense is to attack anyone involved with bringing the truth to light. Shit up the place so everything, especially the truth, isn't decernable. I, and most people, will not fall for it.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

It sounds to me like he's saying "police misconduct doesn't make a guilty perp innocent". I think.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Ok, but that's the meaning I took when it wasn't standing alone. I think it was meant to be obvious, because I suspect it wasn't just you he was addressing. 

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

To restate the last point of my last post:

Did the cops baton a perp against police rules? i don't believe they did that, but even if they did, that does not make the perp innocent, which dwarfs the charge of potential police misconduct.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Actually I'm not a "situational" anything.  That strikes me as more along your lines.  

One thing I do think your last days postings indicates, is that you are "Selectively Principled" or at the very least a "Situationally avoiding observer" of the truth.  

In other words, you like the liberals here, conveniently ignore the facts and crimes committed by the left, as well as ignoring the provable selective prosecution by the leftists who are handling the Trump matter.

Funny how that works with you.  LOL  

P.S.  Some might call your avoidance of addressing criminal activity by the Hilary Clinton campaign to indicate intellectual dishonesty on your part, or perhaps not wanting to upset those liberals whom you seem to coddle and suck up to regularly.

Once again for the intellectual frauds out there:  (And I'm not accusing you of that, but many here on the left)

https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/more-proof-the-deep-states-hypocrisy-is-alive-and-well/

P.P.S.  And don't worry, I don't expect you to address the blatant double standard of selective prosecution whereby Democrats and the corrupt Justice Dep't bigwigs like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper are given a pass, and anyone associated with Trump are hammered with subpoenas and threatened with Jail time, when they've committed Identical crimes for which others in the opposite political party, have been prosecuted.

After all, I don't expect you to go against the grain of the intellectual dishonesty shown by your buddies here on the left. 

If you were to show any intellectual consistency, they might just kick you out of their little treehouse.   LOL 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Actually I'm not a "situational" anything.  That strikes me as more along your lines.  

One thing I do think your last days postings indicates, is that you are "Selectively Principled" or at the very least a "Situationally avoiding observer" of the truth.  

In other words, you like the liberals here, conveniently ignore the facts and crimes committed by the left, as well as ignoring the provable selective prosecution by the leftists who are handling the Trump matter.

Funny how that works with you.  LOL  

P.S.  Some might call your avoidance of addressing criminal activity by the Hilary Clinton campaign to indicate intellectual dishonesty on your part, or perhaps not wanting to upset those liberals whom you seem to coddle and suck up to regularly.

Once again for the intellectual frauds out there:  (And I'm not accusing you of that, but many here on the left)

https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/more-proof-the-deep-states-hypocrisy-is-alive-and-well/

P.P.S.  And don't worry, I don't expect you to address the blatant double standard of selective prosecution whereby Democrats and the corrupt Justice Dep't bigwigs like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper are given a pass, and anyone associated with Trump are hammered with subpoenas and threatened with Jail time, when they've committed Identical crimes for which others in the opposite political party, have been prosecuted.

After all, I don't expect you to go against the grain of the intellectual dishonesty shown by your buddies here on the left. 

If you were to show any intellectual consistency, they might just kick you out of their little treehouse.   LOL 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

 attacking my ethics as "situational" or "opportunistic" in your analysis of my politics...