header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case

 (Read 2496 times)

roadvol

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5612
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #224 on: May 03, 2020, 11:46:40 AM »
Wow!! So Obama's State Dept of which Hiliary had been Sec of State found nothing wrong? I'm shocked!!!
BTW.....Comey wrote the memo saying that Hiliary would not be charged before the investigation was even completed. They had not even interviewed Hiliary or any of her staff at that point.
Really tough investigation!!!

MaximumSam

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7794
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #225 on: May 03, 2020, 11:51:23 AM »
You're completely ignorant of security protocol @MaximumSam and yet doubling down on absurd positions that do nothing but amplify your ignorance.

If you bothered educating yourself about the subject you'd be terribly embarrassed with the position you're attempting to stake out. 

The hag knowingly and purposely set up a server with the explicit purpose of an email handler (SMTP) and used it for work.. she passed classified email after classified email through the server and when caught she bleached it in effort to hide the activities. 

How do we know how many emails passed? Do you know what a bounce is?  Do you realize when am email is sent or received a record of its passing remains on every server in between the author and destination servers?  Do you really want to get in the weeds and discuss this or are you happier to skim the wave tops and continue with your absurd assessment happily ignorant of policy, practice, and technical structure and considerations? 

She was wrong and it was criminal.  It wasn't even accidental, it was purposely done to hide her activities.  Comey said as much on July 5th 2016 and commented "we're not pursuing charges but if anyone else does this we will" .. her case has reopened many cases and using a defense titled in her name which is basically attempted ignorance of protocol, or the effort to argue either "it wasn't classified at the time" or "it was no longer classified"...

If I wanted high side access (SIPRNET) I'd have to show valid reason even to people I worked with for years, then I'd access the vault where several computer stations are located side by side... I'd have to use two factor authentication and then be re-challenged at every entry to file or every five minute lapse on activity.... this is on a Marine Corps base and in a secured facility and these protocols are still enforced strictly.

And she had the same configuration in her closet.  And for liberals who blindly follow dear leader, that's okay.

There is nothing you can say, Sam, from here forward that will carry any weight.  You're done.  You did it to yourself.
The problem you are having is that you are conflating two things. Did her system possibly violate policy, security protocols, or whatever else? Possibly. That's not my area of expertise.

What is clearly not your area of expertise is whether this was a crime. A crime isn't made because somebody somewhere didn't follow the best practices in the office guidebook. It's done by something violates a criminal statute. Here, all the theories that this should be a crime are vague, don't clearly fit the statue, and haven't been used before. Many of them are clearly motivated by political bias.

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #226 on: May 03, 2020, 11:53:43 AM »
Guidebooks? Office practices? 

Again, your ignorance is on parade.  You've been pressed into reducing laws of handling classified material in a box you wish to label guidebooks and best practices... seriously... just stop. 

MaximumSam

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7794
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #227 on: May 03, 2020, 11:55:08 AM »
Wow!! So Obama's State Dept of which Hiliary had been Sec of State found nothing wrong? I'm shocked!!!
BTW.....Comey wrote the memo saying that Hiliary would not be charged before the investigation was even completed. They had not even interviewed Hiliary or any of her staff at that point.
Really tough investigation!!!
There shouldn't have been an investigation at all. Her practices as Secretary of State should have been referred to the president and he could use his judgment on a response.

MaximumSam

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7794
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #228 on: May 03, 2020, 11:57:31 AM »
Guidebooks? Office practices?

Again, your ignorance is on parade.  You've been pressed into reducing laws of handling classified material in a box you wish to label guidebooks and best practices... seriously... just stop.
Yes, I'm the ignorant one, but the FBI, the Department of Justice, and Trump's state department all agreed with me. 

roadvol

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5612
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #229 on: May 03, 2020, 11:59:22 AM »
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]There are several laws that make it a criminal offense knowingly to reveal or mishandle classified information. The main one, 18 USC 1924 reads:[/color]
Quote
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Whoever being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.[/color]


Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #230 on: May 03, 2020, 12:02:55 PM »
Yes, I'm the ignorant one, but the FBI, the Department of Justice, and Trump's state department all agreed with me.
no. they didn't.  they all admit it was a crime and they all said (including trump) they would pursue no charges.  more ignorance.... seriously- stop. 

MaximumSam

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7794
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #231 on: May 03, 2020, 12:05:12 PM »
no. they didn't.  they all admit it was a crime and they all said (including trump) they would pursue no charges.  more ignorance.... seriously- stop.
No they didn't

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #232 on: May 03, 2020, 12:11:14 PM »
yeah, they did... now you're trying to change history to suit your argument?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

roadvol

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5612
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #233 on: May 03, 2020, 12:13:37 PM »
The more Sam attempts to present himself as a legal expert in the misuse of government emails the more ignorant he sounds...now reduced to changing history.
Much like Fuzz...he just doesn't now when to cut bait and drop the subject.

harvestalvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3929
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #234 on: May 03, 2020, 12:20:43 PM »
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]There are several laws that make it a criminal offense knowingly to reveal or mishandle classified information. The main one, 18 USC 1924 reads:[/color]

I know of no one who signed the same oath to protect information, conservative or liberal, who thinks she shouldn't be in jail for this crime. It's pretty clear cut if you have worked in the environment for any length of time. 

highVOLtage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4451
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #235 on: May 03, 2020, 01:03:07 PM »
So they shouldn't have investigated Flynn when they knew he was lying about his contacts with Russia?  It all leads back to the same thing.  They didn't "hope" to compromise Flynn.  He was clearly compromised.  I'm struggling to understand the conspiracy theories when it seems somewhat simple.  The National Security Advisor is lying about his contacts with Russia, and Russia is trying to interfere in the election.  Just...let that go?

This is where you're wrong. Either willing or ignorantly, but that's up to you.

The FBI already knew Flynn was not an agent of Russia, because they had already investigated it and were closing it down until Strzok told the case agents that the upper brass on the 7th floor were taking over.

Here is a good account of the 'why' regarding the FBI's actions against General Flynn...

<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/fbi-set-up-michael-flynn-to-preserve-trump-russia-probe/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first">Michael Flynn was not the objective. He was the obstacle.</a>

"The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.

But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?

The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.

That is why Flynn had to go.

Someone as smooth as Director Comey might be able to dissuade President Trump from inquiring too deeply into the Russia investigation. Trump would be satisfied as long as Comey kept assuring him not to worry because the bureau was not investigating him personally — even though it was. The unseasoned Trump staff would also be easy to brush back: Just tell them that the FBI was rigorously independent, and that if the White House poked around too much, Trump staffers would be accused of political meddling. The staff was green enough to be bullied into minding its own business even about the FBI’s counterintelligence mission, in which the bureau is supposed to serve the White House, not the other way around.

But Flynn was different. After 33 years in the Army chain of command, the decorated former combat commander grasped that the FBI, like other executive-branch components, worked for the president. As NSA, Flynn would ensure that Trump ran the intelligence agencies, not be run by them. If Flynn wanted to know what was going on in intelligence investigations, he’d be able to find out — he wouldn’t take Jim Comey’s “no” for an answer. He was loyal to Trump, not to the intelligence establishment or the “policy community.” And he was White House staff, not a cabinet appointee — i.e., he did not have to wait interminably on an iffy Senate confirmation; he would be on the job from the very first moments of the new administration, getting his arms around what the executive branch intelligence apparatus was up to.."

MaximumSam

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7794
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #236 on: May 03, 2020, 01:39:48 PM »
yeah, they did... now you're trying to change history to suit your argument?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0
To quote Comey:

"No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case."

In looking at prior investigations "we could not find a case that would support charges on these facts."

I mean, this is black and white and you are clearly wrong.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37401
  • Liked:
Re: Explosive Revelations in the Flynn Case
« Reply #237 on: May 03, 2020, 01:45:28 PM »
Comey's opinion is black and white, I agree.  Comey was also not the person to make the decision according to the IG report.  The top lawyer in the FBI was unconvinced until very late in the process, and he talked about lack of intent, which oddly enough is not part of the law.  (The Navy guy was prosecuted without intent.)  

I can't take seriously that someone would maintain electronic records are not covered under this law.

The fact is they didn't bring charges obviously, I recall at the time thinking they would never bring charges against a Presidential candidate of the same party, it is unthinkable.  The question was what sort of ruse would they concoct in order to "rationalize" this.

Their rationalization was ... not very convincing to me on legal grounds.  The statute is quite clear.  Others have been charged, convicted, and jailed for lesser crimes.

But, hey, if Comey said it, who are we to disagree?  It MUST be true.  I guess ...

 

Support the Site!