Anonymous wrote:So, he cooperated. But, they threatened his son.
Bottom line: there was no Russian collusion. Had there been, there would have been charges on that. They only charged some Russians for interfering and that was pretty much face saving as there was no way they would be tried here.

Started by a set-up, mostly relying on a fake dossier. Sure, you can claim Papa was compromised, but that seems quite suspect now. And, as for Carter Page, he was a CIA asset and they left that out of the FISA application. So, they went after Carter Page in order to spy on the campaign.

If it's what you say it is, I love it.

Read the Stone documents. But we are all happy that Mueller showed the campaign was thinking it's dumb to collude successfully and effectively.

Come on, they were desperate for scalps. If they had something, they would have gone for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It was reported everywhere repeatedly. It was in all the papers.

Then, provide a citation for this claim......"Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible."
If it was everywhere, a citation should be pretty easy to find.

Anonymous wrote:Citation: took three seconds on google, this was the first hit

https://www.krgv.com/news/prosecutors-recommend-no-jail-time-for-cooperative-flynn/

There are hundreds of independent reports about this.

Ok. Let's review.

A poster upthread wrote this: "We have to remember that the main reason alarm bells were ringing about Flynn was because he was working for or getting paid by foreign governments (Turkey to kidnap a US resident, Saudi Arabia to sell nuclear secrets, Israel to undermine the US at the UN)."

Another poster wrote this: "If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them?"

Then, another poster wrote this: "Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible."

The link you have provided indicates that because he cooperated, the prosecution was recommending little or no jail time. It says absolutely nothing about pleading to lesser charges. All it referenced was lying to the FBI.

So, you have not provided a citation to support the claim in bold.

So, he cooperated. But, they threatened his son.
Bottom line: there was no Russian collusion. Had there been, there would have been charges on that. They only charged some Russians for interfering and that was pretty much face saving as there was no way they would be tried here.

Started by a set-up, mostly relying on a fake dossier. Sure, you can claim Papa was compromised, but that seems quite suspect now. And, as for Carter Page, he was a CIA asset and they left that out of the FISA application. So, they went after Carter Page in order to spy on the campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It was reported everywhere repeatedly. It was in all the papers.

Citation: took three seconds on google, this was the first hit

https://www.krgv.com/news/prosecutors-recommend-no-jail-time-for-cooperative-flynn/

There are hundreds of independent reports about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It's been explained. You just don't want to believe it.

DP. There is nothing in the plea agreement that supports this.

DP, that is because that isn't how plea deals work. Stop listening to the conspiracy theorists who are flooding the zone with half-truths. if you want to bone up on how plea deals have worked for the last 100 years, google it, but don't just take the word of the like of Eli Lake and Sean Hannity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

No. That is not what I am saying. There were plenty of supposed crimes that posters are alleging he committed well before they decided to interview him. If they wanted him to cooperate, why not charge him with one of those offenses? There would have never been the need to interview him and drum up the lying charge.

Because that is not how prosecutors work. They got him on an airtight smaller offense with the goal of flipping him. He flipped until he didn't. This was textbook until Barr came in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It's been explained. You just don't want to believe it.

No. We need a citation. It has been repeated here frequently, but I have yet to see a citation for this statement.
I don't want an explanation. I want a citation.

The leak that they were threatening to prosecute his son came three days before he plead guilty. Emails between his lawyers and the SCO just the week before said he would not plead guilty.

Nothing to see here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It's been explained. You just don't want to believe it.

DP. There is nothing in the plea agreement that supports this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

It's been explained. You just don't want to believe it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

I have seen this claim made before. We need a citation for it. Because, it simply doesn't make sense.

Reality doesn't make sense. You haven't learned that yet?

We need a citation for the bolded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using the PP story, what happened in the oval office on 1/5/17 and what did Biden know...

Why are you so desperate to get General Pizzagate off?

I don't get it.

No matter how noble your sentiment might be, there is no excuse for prosecutorial misconduct, or trying to set someone up to manufacture a crime, or altering email evidence...etc, etc, etc.

If Flynn did all of these horrible things, why didn't they prosecute him for them? There was no need for the interview to "get him to lie". All of the other crap that he supposedly did, occurred prior to the interview...could have just threatened to prosecute him for those things in order to get him to cooperate, right? No need for the subsequent interview and setup...unless they didn't have anything on him to begin with. Hence...."no derogatory information".

Because he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, so they went with the least impactful offense possible. But then, after Barr was hired, he decided to recant.

No. That is not what I am saying. There were plenty of supposed crimes that posters are alleging he committed well before they decided to interview him. If they wanted him to cooperate, why not charge him with one of those offenses? There would have never been the need to interview him and drum up the lying charge.