Flynn Flipped: Prepared to testify that he was ordered contact Russian Govt - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52937929][media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936628560374071296[/media] YO![/QUOTE] i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/media] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol

[QUOTE=postal;52939591]i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/URL] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol[/QUOTE] This is what I figured the original story meant, nothing we don't already know. ABC really screwed the pooch on this one.

[QUOTE=postal;52939591]i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/media] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol[/QUOTE] I was seriously about to ask where they were getting that from, thanks.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52938997]I forgot about the judicial nominations, but I'm not really upset with his SC pick, because I feel it restores the previous ideological balance it had, which I find was perfect with just as many progressive judges as there are conservative ones. But I just don't think Trump as really done anything really significant yet other than that.[/QUOTE] Gorsuch is literally a GOP bitch. He has already ignored facts in order to rule the way Paul Ryan et. al. want him to. And even the other conservative members have called him out on it. In [URL="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf"]Pavan v. Smith[/URL], a lesbian couple had a child via artificial insemination, and the State of Arkansas refused to list both parents on the birth certificate, despite a state law that says that the "husband of the mother" is to be listed as the father, potentially with the biological father as well if both men affirm that he is the biological parent. The case went all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which ruled that that law applies only to heterosexual couples, as it is a record of biological origin, not a right to the parents. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The majority opinion (6-3, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) stated that, as ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, the government cannot deny rights and privileges to same-sex couples, and reversed the ruling, remanding it back to the state court. (Basically, they said "no, if your rule is that a straight couple that artificially inseminates lists a father with no genetic relation, you have to do the same for non-straight couples, now do it again and get it right this time") The dissent, authored by Gorsuch with Thomas and Alito dissenting, basically makes a chain of bullshit arguments, knowing that some of them will be knocked down but hoping enough hills of shit will slow you down: 1) There's nothing we can do in this case 2) Even if there was something we can do, it wouldn't be against Obergefell to list biological parentage instead of marriage 3) This isn't that anyways, because the state law already says non-straight couples should be listed as parents 4) Really, is Obergefell "settled"? Are we 100% sure we can't discriminate against the gays anymore? Note how #1 and #3 directly contradict each other? Note how utterly stupid it is to say "the case was decided properly even though the ruling contradicts what we claim the state law says"? I'm surprised Thomas signed off on it. He's conservative AF but he usually at least lives in reality. Alito, I'm not too surprised, since he's pretty flexible with his logic as long as it manages to reach the same conclusions as the Republican platform. Maybe Alito and Thomas were just busy and didn't feel like writing separate dissents? Gorsuch is a disgrace, even for conservatives. This is hardly the first time he's ignored facts that disagree with his politics - look up the TransAm Trucking case he handled in the Circuit Court.

[QUOTE=Pax;52938698]So if you're Donald Trump and his family, and also an intelligent individual (for argument's sake), what do you do now? Do you try and hope and pretend that nothing is wrong up until the gentlemen with the vests and the handcuffs come knocking? Do you resign and hope that takes the pressure off? Do you flee the country? Is it even possible for a sitting or even former President to escape, considering their security detail? Or do you take the opportunity to do something even crazier, like burn the system down before they get to you, or try to pull of something like a coup? Again, fuck 2017 for making these the kinds of questions that can get asked.[/QUOTE] I would pull the loud handle, flip, sing like a canary. The thought of having family that outright committed high treason makes my skin crawl, hell, I'd probably publicly disown any familial ties to them at the same time.

[QUOTE=postal;52939591]i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/media] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol[/QUOTE] So this basically means that it's all nowhere near as huge as we thought it was? But then why is this something to lie to the FBI about?

[QUOTE=postal;52939591]i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/media] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol[/QUOTE] so... nothingburger?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52939111]Stefan Molyneuxs take [media]https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/936649103295074304[/media] This is what madness looks like.[/QUOTE] Haha, holy shit. Clearly we should've just let Russia get away with a proxy invasion of a sovereign nation's territory, because they justified it with "well they're mostly Russians anyways." Imagine if Mexico decided to just roll up some tanks and annex the entire city of El Paso. It's an 80.7% Hispanic community, and was previously owned by Mexico. Crimea was only 65.3% Russian as of 2014, and was also previously owned by Russia. I kinda doubt that Moly-know-nothing would be totally OK with that sort of unwarranted aggression. Also, I love how he pins it on Obama for "needlessly escalating tensions." No, dipshit, it was [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis"]basically the entire international community[/URL]. The US, the entirety of the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada, Moldova, Montenegro, Iceland, Albania, Norway, Switzerland - basically all of Europe and every significant country in the Western world agreed that the invasion of Crimea was unjustifiable. They responded using soft power, through economic sanctions, instead of resorting to international warfare. Flynn didn't prevent WW3 - [I]Obama did[/I]. If the international community had done nothing in response to Russian aggression in Crimea, Russia would've had no disincentive to continue occupying former territories - and that easily could've spilled over until actual warfare was inevitable.

[QUOTE=postal;52939591]i can't remember what this said exactly, but apparently it was inaccurate since they've deleted it and issued a new statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936760299146956800[/media] so yea supposedly the contact order happened during the transition, not during the election campaign, and it was in response to ISIS. way to jump the gun ABC lol[/QUOTE] So this is out of date again

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52939917]So this is out of date again[/QUOTE] ABC News, Take 3... Action! [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936805557029048321[/media]

-snip- ninjad fffff

So we got our hopes up for nothing? :(

[QUOTE=Richardroth;52939978]So we got our hopes up for nothing? :([/QUOTE] no, because it still doesn't explain why Flynn would lie about it

[QUOTE=Richardroth;52939978]So we got our hopes up for nothing? :([/QUOTE] Of course not. It's still a plea deal; he still committed plenty of crimes. The only logical people they would use him to gather significant information with would be: Kushner, Pence, Trump. It's still a very big story - and that they're using him as a witness/info source to keep going up even now means they've got a lot more up their sleeves. Edit: Also, yeah, the above. The motive for the lie is important - surely he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52939681]Gorsuch is literally a GOP bitch. He has already ignored facts in order to rule the way Paul Ryan et. al. want him to. And even the other conservative members have called him out on it. In [URL="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-992_868c.pdf"]Pavan v. Smith[/URL], a lesbian couple had a child via artificial insemination, and the State of Arkansas refused to list both parents on the birth certificate, despite a state law that says that the "husband of the mother" is to be listed as the father, potentially with the biological father as well if both men affirm that he is the biological parent. The case went all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which ruled that that law applies only to heterosexual couples, as it is a record of biological origin, not a right to the parents. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The majority opinion (6-3, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) stated that, as ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, the government cannot deny rights and privileges to same-sex couples, and reversed the ruling, remanding it back to the state court. (Basically, they said "no, if your rule is that a straight couple that artificially inseminates lists a father with no genetic relation, you have to do the same for non-straight couples, now do it again and get it right this time") The dissent, authored by Gorsuch with Thomas and Alito dissenting, basically makes a chain of bullshit arguments, knowing that some of them will be knocked down but hoping enough hills of shit will slow you down: 1) There's nothing we can do in this case 2) Even if there was something we can do, it wouldn't be against Obergefell to list biological parentage instead of marriage 3) This isn't that anyways, because the state law already says non-straight couples should be listed as parents 4) Really, is Obergefell "settled"? Are we 100% sure we can't discriminate against the gays anymore? Note how #1 and #3 directly contradict each other? Note how utterly stupid it is to say "the case was decided properly even though the ruling contradicts what we claim the state law says"? I'm surprised Thomas signed off on it. He's conservative AF but he usually at least lives in reality. Alito, I'm not too surprised, since he's pretty flexible with his logic as long as it manages to reach the same conclusions as the Republican platform. Maybe Alito and Thomas were just busy and didn't feel like writing separate dissents? Gorsuch is a disgrace, even for conservatives. This is hardly the first time he's ignored facts that disagree with his politics - look up the TransAm Trucking case he handled in the Circuit Court.[/QUOTE] So, to sum this up, I say "I don't mind that they replaced a super conservative judge with another super conservative judge, keeping the balance the court had.", and you reply with "but he votes conservative!"

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52940016]Of course not. It's still a plea deal; he still committed plenty of crimes. The only logical people they would use him to gather significant information with would be: Kushner, Pence, Trump. It's still a very big story - and that they're using him as a witness/info source to keep going up even now means they've got a lot more up their sleeves. Edit: Also, yeah, the above. The motive for the lie is important - surely he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI.[/QUOTE] Ah , ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not well versed in this sort of thing.

[QUOTE=milktree;52940011]no, because it still doesn't explain why Flynn would lie about it[/QUOTE] Another thing is why would the White House go as far as to cancel that media event regarding this if it was nothing as well.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52940016]Of course not. It's still a plea deal; he still committed plenty of crimes. The only logical people they would use him to gather significant information with would be: Kushner, Pence, Trump. It's still a very big story - and that they're using him as a witness/info source to keep going up even now means they've got a lot more up their sleeves. Edit: Also, yeah, the above. The motive for the lie is important - surely he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI.[/QUOTE] this. abc misquoted someone - they got ahead of themselves as TV news organisations do. it has no actual reflection on the contents of the plea deal which by themselves are highly suggestive. no matter what, the investigation will escalate from here.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52940034]So, to sum this up, I say "I don't mind that they replaced a super conservative judge with another super conservative judge, keeping the balance the court had.", and you reply with "but he votes conservative!"[/QUOTE] I don't think it's because he votes conservative I think his point was that he has made questionable rulings in the past, and even if you put that aside Gorsuchs [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/gorsuch-speech-trump-hotel-ethics.html"]ethical flexibility[/URL] is concerning as well but this is TYOL 2017 and Republicans are above ethical standards. [editline]2nd December 2017[/editline] gman made the observation that the dissenting opinion was illogical and contradictory, not "conservative". Fair enough if you think those things describe conservative policy but you are just putting words in his mouth by saying [QUOTE] and you reply with "but he votes conservative!"[/QUOTE] [editline]2nd December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52938747]Nothing that he has or hasn't done is permanent. Any new administration can undo what he did like he tried so hard to undo what obama did.[/QUOTE] The diplomatic damage done by Trump has been immense already. If he left office tomorrow we would be cleaning up his mess for years. The fact that he is going to be around long enough to sign off terrible shit coming from the Republicans in Congress can have longterm social and economic consequences as well.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52940034]So, to sum this up, I say "I don't mind that they replaced a super conservative judge with another super conservative judge, keeping the balance the court had.", and you reply with "but he votes conservative!"[/QUOTE] How the fuck is that what you read? Because that's not what I wrote. Judges aren't supposed to be political. They're supposed to be neutral arbiters of justice. Yes, they have philosophies that guide them, but those are (historically and generally) more abstract legal philosophies than party platforms. They're supposed to judge based on what is right and wrong, not what their political party wants them to do. You rule on [I]facts[/I]. You rule on [I]laws[/I]. Gorsuch has shown that he doesn't care what is right or wrong, only what the Party wants. He has shown a complete willingness to get the facts of the case [I]wrong[/I] if that will let him pen an anti-liberal dissent. I have respect for most of the justices, even the conservative-leaning ones. I disagree with their politics but I less frequently disagree with their decisions, or can at least find them reasonable. Alito has sometimes been a pseudo-Scalia, playing the pawn for Republican politics, but as long as the case isn't one that would make Fox News, he usually does good work. Gorsuch, though, is a fucking disgrace. I can't believe he's a judge, let alone on the highest court in the land. I would not be surprised if he becomes the first impeached Justice.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52940469]Goddamn ABC way to fuck up. Also statement [media]https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936863167774302208[/media][/QUOTE] EXACTLY WHAT RICHARD FUCKING NIXON SAID

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52940034]So, to sum this up, I say "I don't mind that they replaced a super conservative judge with another super conservative judge, keeping the balance the court had.", and you reply with "but he votes conservative!"[/QUOTE] Obama got robbed of a judicial seat because republicans decided they could just not do their job for months. Caring about the ideological balance of the court is some dumb "both sides" crap.

This is the shittest episode of Miami Vice ever.

When we flip the senate next year, I say we just refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court vacancies for the rest of Trump’s term. Fuck these guys, now is no time to play nice. We are in the midst of a corporate coup at the hands of the GOP.

[media]https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/937007356436721664[/media]

Btw, that's in reply to this, which is uh...yeah... [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618[/media]

It's pretty obvious he's lying but hey file that into the evidence drawer anyway Mueller

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52941115]Btw, that's in reply to this, which is uh...yeah... [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618[/media][/QUOTE] I'm interested to see the incidence of binge drinking in the law firm representing Trump. I'd probably have jumped off the roof by now because he can't shut his fucking mouth and stop dumping evidence against him on Twitter for two seconds.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52941115]Btw, that's in reply to this, which is uh...yeah... [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618[/media][/QUOTE] uhm.. [media]https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/937012899972759552[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/937009631662104578[/media]

Wow, the meltdown is one of pure amazement. I think 'Oh my god' sums this up nicely.