Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

[Mountain Man]

I don't want to hear her conclusions.

Of course you don't.

Where is this documented?

You claim you've read the sources, so you should know precisely where it's documented.

[carpedm9587]

Because I hate myself I read your link and the article that link references. I don't want to hear her conclusions. I want to hear from you what behavior, specifically, you think is wrong and how that behavior is documented in the FBI docs. By this point I'm more familiar with this material than you are!

Where is this documented?




Where is this documented? What PDF? What text? What email? Where is the proof that this occurred actually stored?
We *know* he was lying to the press and the WH for 2 weeks prior to the interview. Are you saying he suddenly started telling the truth to the agents in the interview? Where is the *proof*?!

Was it wrong to discuss how the interview should be handled depending on how Flynn responded? I don't see how.
Did the agents make up the fact that Flynn violated Logan? Show me the money! Where is that shown in the documents?
And, for God's sake, was Enron *innocent*? Holy hell. Watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room" and tell me they did not deserve prosecution.

I've reviewed - and I'm not finding it. As best I can tell, this is more right-wing disinformation.

[DivineOb]

Of course you don't.

She was being flagrantly dishonest about what she said about Wiessmann and Enron. For example, the case against the accounting firm was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court. Why?

The court ruled unanimously that the Houston jury that found Arthur Andersen LLP guilty of obstruction of justice was given overly broad instructions by the federal judge who presided at the trial.

It had *nothing* to do with Wiessmann at all! Yet she presents it like he was scheming to destroy the company.

You claim you've read the sources, so you should know precisely where it's documented.

I have read the sources *and they show the opposite of what she says*! If I missed something then show it to me. Show me the proof that the FBI lied! I *want* to know if they are doing these things because I *want* to know if my government is acting in my best interests. And, to quote the cliche, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

You clearly know that the evidence *does not exist* or you would gleefully thrust it into my face (and I'd deserve that).

No wonder you're in your current situation.

[Mountain Man]

I've reviewed - and I'm not finding it.

You're not finding it because you don't want to find it. Willful ignorance is such a poor debate strategy.

[Mountain Man]

Show me the proof that the FBI lied!

I already have.

[DivineOb]

I already have.

Ok :). You just don't care what's true. Got it.

[Mountain Man]

"Show me the evidence!"
"Here it is."
(Closes his eyes.) "Where? I don't see it!"

[DivineOb]

"Show me the evidence!"
"Here it is."
(Closes his eyes.) "Where? I don't see it!"

Sad, sad man. Anyway, I'll be sure you remind you about the missing evidence the next time you post on this topic. It was educational and I wouldn't have read the underlying docs without you so I do have you to think for that.

[Mountain Man]

I'll be sure you remind you about the missing evidence [that I refuse to acknowledge] the next time you post on this topic.

[carpedm9587]

You're not finding it because you don't want to find it. Willful ignorance is such a poor debate strategy.

MM - when you offer evidence - it becomes incumbent on you to actually offer the evidence. I've made a good faith effort to find it despite that lack on your part. I cannot manufacture what is not there. On the other hand, you can easily produce what you claim IS there. The fact that you don't essentially renders your entire rant here moot.

But, of course, I'm sure there will be a reason why it is incumbent on me to find the evidence you claim exists...

[carpedm9587]

Sad, sad man. Anyway, I'll be sure you remind you about the missing evidence the next time you post on this topic. It was educational and I wouldn't have read the underlying docs without you so I do have you to think for that.

You're being trolled...

[Mountain Man]

You're being trolled...

I know. But DivineBoob isn't good for much else.

[Mountain Man]

MM - when you offer evidence - it becomes incumbent on you to actually offer the evidence.

I have in the form of quotes and links to original documents and substantive legal analysis, but you guys are basically saying, "I don't like that. What else do you have?" It's a pretty weak rebuttal, if you want to be honest.

[DivineOb]

I know. But DivineBoob isn't good for much else.

Right, right. Ad hominem, grudging admission of defeat. Got it.

[carpedm9587]

I know. But DivineBoob isn't good for much else.

Between this philosophy and your bias problem, now you know why I have pretty much elected to stop engaging in discussions unless you ask a direct question I have not previously answered.

And I saw your post about the required evidence. I have been through your posts, and you have not provided the evidence for the specific claim DO is asking about. If you think you have, by all means link the relevant post. Mostly, your "evidence" takes the form of a lot of cherry-picked statements and quotes designed to paint a particular narrative. It's not worth spending any more of my time on unless you actually have some real evidence, in context, that makes the case you're trying to make.