|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn.
He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do.
However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast:
![[image loading]](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/flynn-case-dowd-call-vs-mueller-report.jpg)
|
It reads like Dowd made up a national security rationale to get information despite Flynn not being in the joint defense agreement, and Dowd also dangled a pardon. The Mueller report got both points across.
|
Every time xD posts in this thread, it's almost like he's interviewing for a job. He's spinning everything he can to shed a better light on this administration. I get he's a lawyer, but everything he posts is in stark contrast to the facts of the issues at hand.
|
On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast:
Words removed
"If you have...and" - redundant with next set of words
", and, uh, work with" - redundant with previous wording (deal implies work with)
"on the other hand, we have" - figuring out a way to phrase the following sentence.
"or maybe a national security issue, I don't know...some issue, we got to -we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country." - Sounds like trying to find a indirect way of implying something, when taken with the context of the earlier sentence.
"uh... " - stall word
"you know, then-then" - stuttering
"without you having to give up any...confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know" -legal disclaimer.
Last sentence is just signing off.
I would argue the removed sentences make it sound even worse than it does without it. If you have other thoughts on the removed wording though, I'd like to hear it.
Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Every time xD posts in this thread, it's almost like he's interviewing for a job. He's spinning everything he can to shed a better light on this administration. I get he's a lawyer, but everything he posts is in stark contrast to the facts of the issues at hand.
That's just standard xD/Danglers.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast:
What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal.
I know, you know... so why do it?
|
On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it?
Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests.
Keep in mind people (liberals) spent the last 2 years waiting on baited breath for a report from someone they know helped run a massive criminal domestic spying operation lol.
|
On June 01 2019 10:25 Doodsmack wrote:
It reads like Dowd made up a national security rationale to get information despite Flynn not being in the joint defense agreement, and Dowd also dangled a pardon. The Mueller report got both points across.
The key sentences that were omitted are the underlined one regarding confidential information and the discussion about working with the government, thereby foreclosing the possibility of a joint defense. What Dowd is saying is that he understands that Flynn may have a common interest agreement in place with the government as part of a larger deal that would foreclose Flynn from sharing information would be subject to confidentiality as a consequence of that agreement with Trump's team and that he doesn't want to cause Flynn to breach that agreement. What I'm sure that Dowd originally wanted was for Flynn and his attorneys to sign a similar deal (the joint defense) with Trump and his attorneys so that they could work together and share information. What Mueller is doing with his edits is obfuscating the context of the voice message and hiding the fact that all that Dowd was really trying to do was what Mueller had already done, which is not inappropriate.This is yet another example of selective editing by the Mueller team to spin and misrepresent facts to inflict maximum PR damage upon Trump. It's quite dishonest once you understand what's going on -- albeit this is the kind of thing that even most attorneys would miss.
|
On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests.
Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt.
But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case.
Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering.
|
On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering.
I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that?
|
On June 01 2019 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering. I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that?
Oh pls... I'd love to hear your theory on the criminality of the republican appointed special counsel. Trump appointed the man who appointed the criminal republican special counsel.
Pls go ahead and lay it out for me.
Your post is a classic example of exactly the thing I'm talking about. There is an entire body of examples of trump's criminality that predates the report by decades.
For that matter, why bother commenting on a post you wouldn't waste your time with? Any idea?
|
On June 01 2019 13:06 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering. I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that? Oh pls... I'd love to hear your theory on the criminality of the republican appointed special counsel. Trump appointed the man who appointed the criminal republican special counsel. Pls go ahead and lay it out for me. Your post is a classic example of exactly the thing I'm talking about. There is an entire body of examples of trump's criminality that predates the report by decades. For that matter, why bother commenting on a post you wouldn't waste your time with? Any idea?
I've mentioned it before and liberals used to care about it. Do I need to dig up reports on Mueller's tenure and the massive criminal domestic spying that happened post 9/11 or do you want to skip to the making excuses part?
I wouldn't waste the time "if I was xDaunt", there's value in confronting this silliness for me.
EDIT: Or maybe straight to the "convenient bypassing" and "selective hearing and answering". "Any idea?"
|
On June 01 2019 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering. I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that?
Exactly. I don't have much incentive to so waste my time. I could do to shambhalawar or any number of other posters what I did to Stratos_Spear the other day, but why bother? Did he learn anything from the experience? Did any of the other posters? Probably not. I have limited tolerance and patience for dealing with limitless hordes of piss-poor straw man arguments.
|
The other thing to note about the Flynn filing today is that the prosecutors straight up disobeyed the Court's order to provide all of the recordings that it had on Flynn. Instead, the prosecutor stated that "The government further represents that it is not relying on any other recordings, of any person, for purposes of establishing defendant's guilt or determining his sentence, nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record." I'm curious as to whether the judge is going to accept this dodge.
|
On June 01 2019 13:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering. I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that? Exactly. I don't have much incentive to so waste my time. I could do to shambhalawar or any number of other posters what I did to Stratos_Spear the other day, but why bother? Did he learn anything from the experience? Did any of the other posters? Probably not. I have limited tolerance and patience for dealing with limitless hordes of piss-poor straw man arguments.
You're assuming that anyone learns anything from the countless pages of opinion posted in these forums. In my experience, these forums aren't a place for people to learn so much, though i suppose some do. My experience is that people (like myself) come here mostly to vent opinions, because they feel frustrated with the current world situation.
Talking about mueller and his intentions, is boring and pointless to me. He is your people, a republican. If you think he is a criminal, then that just makes one more republican who is a criminal. It's your party who appointed him, why pick leaders and reps for you that are criminals?
That is a much more interesting question to me.
Frankly I don't think you have an answer, or want to admit to what you really think. trump is getting investigated by his own appointees, hell he made Nancy Regan a fucking democrat before she died. Was McCain a corrupt criminal too?
Strange that literally every republican talked shit about trump, until he was nominated then they all became bootlickers. That is the caliber of person you want to empower to make choices for you? lindsey grahm who talked insane shit about trump and now can't stop backing him.
Does that foster trust for you, the constant flip flops of your leaders?
Do you really think someone who is lying most days (trump) of the week is telling you the truth or doing anything because he thinks it will help you? Is Mitch McConnell going to have your best interest in mind?
If you actually believe that, then at least that is an answer. I can only assume on some level we are all doing our best to do of what we think is in our best interest... I just can't for the life of me understand why you think the guy from "the apprentice" is going to deliver this country to a better place...
Or why reinvesting in coal is a good idea... Doesn't that kind of things seem off? Like maybe there is more room to grow jobs in new tech like solar rather than a dying one like coal?
This is what republicans push as the future, that doesn't seem "off" to you? A tax plan in which the benefits for the majority expire in a couple years, while the corporate benefits are forever... Not strange?
|
On June 01 2019 16:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 13:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 01 2019 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 01 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2019 12:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 01 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:There's nothing inappropriate about Dowd's message at all. In fact, he said all of the things that I would expect an attorney to say in that situation. If true that is pretty shitty, because it is very clear he is trying to influence Flynn, when he is not allowed to influence Flynn. He's not influencing anything. He's trying to get information from Flynn's counsel, which is his duty to his client to do. However, I will tell you what is pretty shitty. What Mueller did with selective editing in his report regarding this voice message. Compare and contrast: What I think is really interesting is that people continually make excuses for someone they know is a criminal. I know, you know... so why do it? Same reason people who support any politician do it. They view the alternative as worse for their interests. Yea, maybe... but people don't have the balls to say it. I would actually respect that answer if someone would own how they actually felt. But that's not what I hear from anyone... instead I hear the constantlyyy making excuses for the criminality as if it wasn't the case. Notice the convenient bypassing that just occurred... par for the course. The selective hearing and answering. I wouldn't waste my time if I was xDaunt either honestly. Like I said, people have been taking the Mueller report like gospel as if it wasn't written by a criminal and I don't recall anyone owning up to that? Exactly. I don't have much incentive to so waste my time. I could do to shambhalawar or any number of other posters what I did to Stratos_Spear the other day, but why bother? Did he learn anything from the experience? Did any of the other posters? Probably not. I have limited tolerance and patience for dealing with limitless hordes of piss-poor straw man arguments. You're assuming that anyone learns anything from the countless pages of opinion posted in these forums. In my experience, these forums aren't a place for people to learn so much, though i suppose some do. My experience is that people (like myself) come here mostly to vent opinions, because they feel frustrated with the current world situation. Talking about mueller and his intentions, is boring and pointless to me. He is your people, a republican. If you think he is a criminal, then that just makes one more republican who is a criminal.
straight to the "convenient bypassing" and "selective hearing and answering" I see. Well I for one learn from pretty much every poster, even the terrible ones.
That you're here to vent frustration rather than engage in dialogue is helpful information and probably why people will stop responding to you (or not do it at all).
For future reference you might want to just use the venting thread which is made for what you're doing in this thread instead. Just my $0.02
https://tl.net/forum/general/235432-the-letting-off-steam-thread
|
I read most of the thread and find xDaunts posts to be pretty informative. I'm not well versed in law neither German nor US American and I appreciate the counter balance. I don't believe all of them 1:1 and miss a human "Trump is a total jerk but he is right" now and then but I believe we should be thankful to have people from both sides posting here. Dialogue is always better than silence.
|
On June 01 2019 12:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 10:25 Doodsmack wrote:
It reads like Dowd made up a national security rationale to get information despite Flynn not being in the joint defense agreement, and Dowd also dangled a pardon. The Mueller report got both points across. The key sentences that were omitted are the underlined one regarding confidential information and the discussion about working with the government, thereby foreclosing the possibility of a joint defense. What Dowd is saying is that he understands that Flynn may have a common interest agreement in place with the government as part of a larger deal that would foreclose Flynn from sharing information would be subject to confidentiality as a consequence of that agreement with Trump's team and that he doesn't want to cause Flynn to breach that agreement. What I'm sure that Dowd originally wanted was for Flynn and his attorneys to sign a similar deal (the joint defense) with Trump and his attorneys so that they could work together and share information. What Mueller is doing with his edits is obfuscating the context of the voice message and hiding the fact that all that Dowd was really trying to do was what Mueller had already done, which is not inappropriate.This is yet another example of selective editing by the Mueller team to spin and misrepresent facts to inflict maximum PR damage upon Trump. It's quite dishonest once you understand what's going on -- albeit this is the kind of thing that even most attorneys would miss.
But not you, XDaunt, super attorney at law, flawless in all ways, not in the slightest bit obviously biased towards the Republican party. I wish you were vaguely credible. It would be nice. But you so blatantly fail to apply this supposed rigour to anything involving Obama or Clinton that it just makes you impossible to believe. No matter how many other high-ranking legal professionals find issue, somehow, you never find anything wrong. Ever.
|
|
|
On June 01 2019 20:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 01 2019 10:25 Doodsmack wrote:
It reads like Dowd made up a national security rationale to get information despite Flynn not being in the joint defense agreement, and Dowd also dangled a pardon. The Mueller report got both points across. The key sentences that were omitted are the underlined one regarding confidential information and the discussion about working with the government, thereby foreclosing the possibility of a joint defense. What Dowd is saying is that he understands that Flynn may have a common interest agreement in place with the government as part of a larger deal that would foreclose Flynn from sharing information would be subject to confidentiality as a consequence of that agreement with Trump's team and that he doesn't want to cause Flynn to breach that agreement. What I'm sure that Dowd originally wanted was for Flynn and his attorneys to sign a similar deal (the joint defense) with Trump and his attorneys so that they could work together and share information. What Mueller is doing with his edits is obfuscating the context of the voice message and hiding the fact that all that Dowd was really trying to do was what Mueller had already done, which is not inappropriate.This is yet another example of selective editing by the Mueller team to spin and misrepresent facts to inflict maximum PR damage upon Trump. It's quite dishonest once you understand what's going on -- albeit this is the kind of thing that even most attorneys would miss. But not you, XDaunt, super attorney at law, flawless in all ways, not in the slightest bit obviously biased towards the Republican party. I wish you were vaguely credible. It would be nice. But you so blatantly fail to apply this supposed rigour to anything involving Obama or Clinton that it just makes you impossible to believe. No matter how many other high-ranking legal professionals find issue, somehow, you never find anything wrong. Ever.
If you imagine him like a defense attorney for his own political interests it's really not that confusing imo. He provides the best defense he can muster and makes the presumption that this is an adversarial (speaking of political views/interests) engagement. His arguments exist the same way there's arguments in defense of and voters for Sen. Menendez. Still a member of the party and will likely have their backing if he runs again in 2024.
The differences are in degree and consequences, not who supports and "defends criminals" or not from what I've seen.
|
On June 01 2019 21:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2019 20:08 iamthedave wrote:On June 01 2019 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 01 2019 10:25 Doodsmack wrote:
It reads like Dowd made up a national security rationale to get information despite Flynn not being in the joint defense agreement, and Dowd also dangled a pardon. The Mueller report got both points across. The key sentences that were omitted are the underlined one regarding confidential information and the discussion about working with the government, thereby foreclosing the possibility of a joint defense. What Dowd is saying is that he understands that Flynn may have a common interest agreement in place with the government as part of a larger deal that would foreclose Flynn from sharing information would be subject to confidentiality as a consequence of that agreement with Trump's team and that he doesn't want to cause Flynn to breach that agreement. What I'm sure that Dowd originally wanted was for Flynn and his attorneys to sign a similar deal (the joint defense) with Trump and his attorneys so that they could work together and share information. What Mueller is doing with his edits is obfuscating the context of the voice message and hiding the fact that all that Dowd was really trying to do was what Mueller had already done, which is not inappropriate.This is yet another example of selective editing by the Mueller team to spin and misrepresent facts to inflict maximum PR damage upon Trump. It's quite dishonest once you understand what's going on -- albeit this is the kind of thing that even most attorneys would miss. But not you, XDaunt, super attorney at law, flawless in all ways, not in the slightest bit obviously biased towards the Republican party. I wish you were vaguely credible. It would be nice. But you so blatantly fail to apply this supposed rigour to anything involving Obama or Clinton that it just makes you impossible to believe. No matter how many other high-ranking legal professionals find issue, somehow, you never find anything wrong. Ever. If you imagine him like a defense attorney for his own political interests it's really not that confusing imo. He provides the best defense he can muster and makes the presumption that this is an adversarial (speaking of political views/interests) engagement. His arguments exist the same way there's arguments in defense of and voters for Sen. Menendez. Still a member of the party and will likely have their backing if he runs again in 2024. The differences are in degree and consequences, not who supports and "defends criminals" or not from what I've seen.
Oh no don't get me wrong, I'm not confused. Like I said, it would be nice if he were in the slightest bit credible. I learned this lesson way back in your blog. It is disheartening, because it's living evidence that America is unfixably fucked, but it's not confusing.
It's also boring watching the iterations of the same argument over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
