We're Taking Your President From You Episode III: Flynn Likely Flips

[Mormolyce]

You mean something like this?

I loved that clip... I think there's a fully animated and colourised version on Youtube now :P

[Dacien]

Im gonna make an image at this just so we can wave it in some people's faces.

@Tijuana @Ransath @Dacien

Your President is under investigation. But of course, he has been the entire time.

I hate to bring this back up, but I read this article and immediately thought of you, @Skroe, who has taken such a hard line stance against Trump that you use language toward fellow conservatives that even if it's not outright condemnation, it's condemnation adjacent. David Limbaugh hit the nail right square on the head regarding Skroe-style conservatism. I highly encourage you to read this.

I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but these are the types of conservatives whose tweets relentlessly savage Trump and harshly judge other conservatives who dare to support or defend him -- on darn near anything. They mock and judge, judge and mock, preen and point, point and preen, forever lamenting the end of decency among many conservatives and the death of the Republican Party.

​These critics argue that conservative Trump supporters have been tainted by their association with Trump, yet they jump in bed with those who haven't a stitch of conservatism in their entire anatomy. They're not just freely cohabiting foxholes with leftists; they are gradually drifting their way on policy.

​They wouldn't be as annoying if they weren't so sanctimonious about their professed conservative purity and so judgmental about conservatives generally supportive of Trump, which brings me to what inspired this column.

​I have no animus for the malcontented Trump haters on the right and strive not to judge them -- though I strongly disagree with them. But I sure wish they would quit judging the millions upon millions of the rest of us, whom they manifestly don't understand.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24500/...david-limbaugh

For the record, I don't think you're "annoying", Skroe, but I think you judge very harshly when other conservatives aren't as quick to condemn Trump, even when he's making good decisions.

[unfilteredJW]

Watching the above be torn to shreds will be very enjoyable.

[Shadowmelded]

I hate to bring this back up, but I read this article and immediately thought of you, @Skroe, who has taken such a hard line stance against Trump that you use language toward fellow conservatives that even if it's not outright condemnation, it's condemnation adjacent. David Limbaugh hit the nail right square on the head regarding Skroe-style conservatism. I highly encourage you to read this.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/24500/...david-limbaugh

For the record, I don't think you're "annoying", Skroe, but I think you judge very harshly when other conservatives aren't as quick to condemn Trump, even when he's making good decisions.

"Our detractors are actually secret liberals" and "We're just too deep for you to understand" lol.

[Ripster42]

Watching the above be torn to shreds will be very enjoyable.

I mean, it's a joke. The GOP is no longer the party of conservative thought. This tax plan should make it very clear they're not interested in a balanced budget but in favoring corporations and rich people. They're the party of regressive thought, not just in economic but social policy.

[Omega10]

Watching the above be torn to shreds will be very enjoyable.

To me, not enjoyable at all. It is something that has to happen, but the aftermath will not be pretty or fun either.

[fengosa]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24500/...david-limbaugh

For the record, I don't think you're "annoying", Skroe, but I think you judge very harshly when other conservatives aren't as quick to condemn Trump, even when he's making good decisions.

It's not about Trump or his policies. It's about whether or not a foreign entity made an attempt to alter US elections and whether or not the current presidents knows that and refuses to acknowledge that. You can like some things Trump says or does and still realize he's out to lunch on the whole collusion investigation which is a serious problem.

[Stormspark]

It's not about Trump or his policies. It's about whether or not a foreign entity made an attempt to alter US elections and whether or not the current presidents knows that and refuses to acknowledge that. You can like some things Trump says or does and still realize he's out to lunch on the whole collusion investigation which is a serious problem.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the "president" is basically a Russian agent. An incompetent one, but a Russian agent nonetheless. I'm sure Mueller knows this, but he has to be able to prove it in an unbiased way, and it's going to take time.

[Dacien]

It's not about Trump or his policies. It's about whether or not a foreign entity made an attempt to alter US elections and whether or not the current presidents knows that and refuses to acknowledge that. You can like some things Trump says or does and still realize he's out to lunch on the whole collusion investigation which is a serious problem.

The Russian collusion investigation is a separate issue entirely, and the investigation is still on-going.

I'm sure if and when the investigation concludes with Trump associates being indicted for lying to the FBI, crimes unrelated to the campaign, etc., but no criminal collusion, people will still say that Trump colluded because the evidence available to the public is stronger than Mueller realizes. Or something of that nature.

On the other hand, if evidence is produced from the investigation that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government on the DNC emails or some other form of criminal collusion, then I will be right there beside them calling for Trump to be impeached and removed. But we don't know that yet, and in the meantime, praising Tump for doing good and criticizing him for doing ill is a perfectly reasonable approach consistent with conservative principles, regardless of what detractors such as Skroe may suggest.

[Felya]

The Russian collusion investigation is a separate issue entirely, and the investigation is still on-going.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about meeting with Russia. What investigation do you think it’s about? Trump’s obstruction, is directly tied to Russian investigation of collusion, involving Flynn.

I'm sure if and when the investigation concludes with Trump associates being indicted for lying to the FBI, crimes unrelated to the campaign, etc., but no criminal collusion, people will still say that Trump colluded because the evidence available to the public is stronger than Mueller realizes. Or something of that nature.

This is meaningless... don’t play tribalism... if Trump is impeached, he and his support will blame the deep state, Clinton’s, democrats, the establishment, coastal elites and something about race. Guess how I know this?

On the other hand, if evidence is produced from the investigation that Trump or his associates worked with the Russian government on the DNC emails or some other form of criminal collusion, then I will be right there beside them calling for Trump to be impeached and removed. But we don't know that yet, and in the meantime, praising Tump for doing good and criticizing him for doing ill is a perfectly reasonable approach consistent with conservative principles, regardless of what detractors such as Skroe may suggest.

Yes, you will dismiss the evidance of things he did that were bad, like the many people he hired, because you believe that he is competent enough to take the effective course? If Trump ignored advisors about Flynn, due to their differences politically, what makes you think Trump won’t ignore faults in his policy, simply because opponents may support it?

[Dacien]

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about meeting with Russia. What investigation do you think it’s about? Trump’s obstruction, is directly tied to Russian investigation of collusion, involving Flynn.

Flynn lied about his contacts post-election, which at best support a Logan Act violation. Good luck with that one. Flynn's plea deal has nothing to do with criminal collusion regarding the election.

This is meaningless... don’t play tribalism... if Trump is impeached, he and his support will blame the deep state, Clinton’s, democrats, the establishment, coastal elites and something about race. Guess how I know this?

If the investigation concludes that Trump or Trump associates colluded criminally to influence the election, I will stand by that conclusion. I reject any interpretation, from either side that the investigation was tainted politically or otherwise, unless evidence emerges that that is the case, which so far there hasn't. Not even Strzok is really all that damning, because as Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor pointed out, FBI agents would frequently rib each other over political views, but it far from interfered with discovery and application of the law.

Yes, you will dismiss the evidance of things he did that were bad, like the many people he hired, because you believe that he is competent enough to take the effective course? If Trump ignored advisors about Flynn, due to their differences politically, what makes you think Trump won’t ignore faults in his policy, simply because opponents may support it?

I can only judge Trump's policies on a case by case basis, and I can laud them when they are great, and criticize them when they are faulty. In spite of the poor choice of reliance on extremely fallible associates, I think Trump has surrounded himself also with upstanding and worthy associates such as Mattis or Haley. Additionally, we don't know that Trump refused advice about Flynn due to political difference, we don't know any of the machinations behind his choice in Flynn.

[Breccia]

Flynn lied about his contacts post-election, which at best support a Logan Act violation.

I'm sorry, was your defense honestly "at best, it's a federal felony"???

[Dacien]

I'm sorry, was your defense honestly "at best, it's a federal felony"???

Yeah, at best, a stretched interpretation of a law that would need to be dug up out of the 18th century and dusted off for it's first successful prosecution.

The Logan Act is not a particularly strong peg to hang your hat on, Breccia.

[Breccia]

Yeah, at best, a stretched interpretation of a law that would need to be dug up out of the 18th century

Hold that thought.

Amended in 1994.

And brought up by the House Ethics Committee in 2006.

Please, continue.

The Logan Act is not a particularly strong peg to hang your hat on, Breccia.

Neither is "gross negligence". Guess what Trump still thinks was a crime?

[Dacien]

Hold that thought.

Amended in 1994.

And brought up by the House Ethics Committee in 2006.

Please, continue.

Here's my point, Breccia: Try to nail Flynn on a Logan Act violation and see how far that gets you. Do you think Mueller will try to push that? I don't, and I think the reason why is pretty clear. As Steve Vladeck pointed out a couple years ago regarding the GOP Senate letter, the Logan Act is "unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech."

Numerous other qualified legal experts have weighed in that prosecution under the Logan Act faces significant constitutional hurdles.

We're not likely to see Mueller pushing this issue, I can almost guarantee it.

[lockedout]

So when is the president being taken again?

[Shadowmelded]

Here's my point, Breccia: Try to nail Flynn on a Logan Act violation and see how far that gets you. Do you think Mueller will try to push that? I don't, and I think the reason why is pretty clear. As Steve Vladeck pointed out a couple years ago regarding the GOP Senate letter, the Logan act is "unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech."

Numerous other qualified legal experts have weighed in that prosecution under the Logan Act faces significant constitutional hurdles.

We're not likely to see Mueller pushing this issue, I can almost guarantee it.

You know the Logan act wasn't the only thing he plead to right? He admitted to making false statements on his FARA filings.

[Dacien]

You know the Logan act wasn't the only thing he plead to right? He admitted to making false statements on his FARA filings.

He didn't plead to Logan Act violations, the Logan Act is only a possible additional criminal charge which Mueller has thus far declined to pursue. His FARA filings have nothing to do with criminal collusion in the election. Strictly speaking about election-related criminal collusion, nothing Flynn did is relevant to that, at least according to the plea deal.

[Shadowmelded]

He didn't plead to Logan Act violations, the Logan Act is only a possible additional criminal charge which Mueller has thus far declined to pursue.

He plead to actions that can be construed to violate the Logan Act.

His FARA filings have nothing to do with criminal collusion in the election. Strictly speaking about election-related criminal collusion, nothing Flynn did is relevant to that, at least according to the plea deal.

Ah ok, you're focusing purely on the collusion aspect. Misread your post as "Flynn did nothing wrong except lie to the FBI".

[Dacien]

Ah ok, you're focusing purely on the collusion aspect. Misread your post as "Flynn did nothing wrong except lie to the FBI".

Right, Felya inferred that Flynn was involved in the investigation regarding collusion, and that is simply not the case. One can interpret Flynn's actions as collusion post-election, but that's not at all what the investigation is all about.