# Gen. Flynn and other issues...



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just to start some discussion and get people not talking about COVID...

1. What do you think will be the outcome or any "backlash" of Gen Flynn?

- I personally think that this could be the start of some major issues that are popping up from the whole Mueller probe.
It will show some injustices and practices. Comey and others might need to look out. But odds are nothing will happen until after the election. That is if Trump wins.

- Maybe the House should have been in session so that the Judiciary Committee could have met with Barr/others to see why are they dropping the charges. This way they could have "plead" a case to keep the charges against him as well. We don't know they were not there to do their jobs. oke:

2. Why isn't the house back in Washington? What is Nancy afraid of... the virus or losing control?

- See above along with the whole Schiff not releasing Documents which he said they would release after being vetted. Which everyone says they are all cleared to be released. Does this have to do with some of the Gen. Flynn stuff... we don't know? Is Schiff afraid he will be in trouble for a shoddy investigation? We don't know.

3. Some are afraid of what or if anything will come with the violations of the Logan Act?

4. Here is a big one.... What about Ginsberg and her health?

- I know she went in for something minor. But this is about the 3rd time she has gone in lately. To be honest she should have retired under the Obama watch so he could have tried to replace her. Don't know if it would have been successful or not with the Congress or nomination process.

- If something should happen to her before the election.... Trump should come right out and say... I WILL NOT PUT ANYONE UP FOR NOMINATION UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION..... He should say the next president should do it. It would do two things... 1. Shut up all the people who complained last nomination. 2. Show some "restraint" by him. Since people think he is a dictator. I could also see him being "cocky" saying... I will appoint a new Justice AFTER I win the election. Which would come and bite him in the butt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When it comes to the whole Russia collusion bs:
The FBI lied
The investigating attorneys lied
The media lied
Schiff lied
Pelosi lied
The witnesses against Trump lied
The whole thing is a Schiff load of swamp lies



> If something should happen to her before the election.... Trump should come right out and say... I WILL NOT PUT ANYONE UP FOR NOMINATION UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION..


That's scary I don't know if I want to take that chance. Sure the liberals complained last time when Obama was stopped from appointing a supreme court judge, but that's the way it works. Now we have the presidency and the senate and I would put on in fast. Crazy as bat crap Ginsburg is trying to hang on until Trump is out.

Bottom line is when Obama was in there was no strategy for the democrats to get their judge of choice. It's an easy hole in one for the republicans and I think they should tee off.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

From the Federalist....

So again take with a grain of salt.

But another person "admitting" they didn't have "hard evidence" when they would go out on TV and say they did.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/ob ... collusion/

So media and others lied during the whole Russia thing...... oke: oke: oke:

Again... is this why Nancy isn't wanting the house to be in Washington? Is she trying to hold up committees meeting to discuss all of this? Instead doing or trying to draw up legislation without debate and talks on the floor about it? Is she trying to "ram" something down out throats???

Time will tell. But I did read she was talking about going back to Washington in a week or two weeks. But mainly to get pushed a voting by "proxy" type thing.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI didn't he? Why won't he be prosecuted? :down:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI didn't he? Why won't he be prosecuted? :down:


Ken if you had your child threatened with prison and it would only cost you a couple of years would you plead guilty? After selling your house and spending all your savings only to have the FBI threaten to put your son in prison would you plead guilty even if not? They told him and us they had all this evidence, but it turned out they lied. When Flynn said he couldn't remember something they said that was a lie. Funny how Hillary always says "I can't recall".

So now they find that an attorney prosecuting Flynn changed one of his sworn affidavits to mean the opposite of what Flynn said. Then other agents admitted they have no evidence. Further some have now admitted they lied. So Ken do you think Flynn should still be prosecuted if all this is true?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....if all that is true.....no he should not be prosecuted.

How about falsifying evidence prosecution for those that did?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman.....if all that is true.....no he should not be prosecuted.
> 
> How about falsifying evidence prosecution for those that did?


 If it can be proven. Some said on television they had positive proof, then under oath admitted they had no evidence. Schiff is one of those who said he had proof beyond doubt, but he has immunity. I think our leaders should be held responsible democrat or republican. How do we ever get truth and integrity back in Washington and in our media. It' something I and friends pray for every evening.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman.....if all that is true.....no he should not be prosecuted.
> ...


 :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

A few things popping up today and depends on what news channels you watch or where you get your info you might miss these. oke:

1. Obama sent a letter to the National Archives saying all "Biden-Ukraine" docs be classified "confidential" so they cant be looked at.

- I am not saying anything bad is in them. But just interesting how this is coming out after the Flynn stuff and didn't happen over a year ago. Just timing is interesting is all.

2. 2000 people/lawyers are asking for Barr to resign because of the Flynn over turn.

- This could be interesting. But also was it because of the BS media who cut off 1/2 an interview with Barr where he talked about Flynn among other topic. The "reporter" is Chuck Todd. If you google it you will see the BS....Is the media trying to hide things????

3. A Clinton Campaign Lawyer testifying he sent the Fusion GPS bill to the Clinton Campaign manager.

- Don't know if this is more than a miss use of funds issue that all campaigns now seem to be getting dinged for. Could be she just needs to "repay" that or a fine like many other campaigns in the past. Or is it something deeper. Time will tell on this one.

4. Mexico is calling for investigations into Fast and Furious.

- This I don't think will amount to too much but could be something to keep an eye on. I think we have learned all we have about this and the BS of what it is. The down side could be getting sued by Mexico or have it hurt trade deals. Because this is a millitary style operation done on non USA soil. Which needs co-operation from each government. Think of the movie Sacario&#8230; it is where the CIA uses a loophole between mexico and USA do to an "op" under the DEA/FBI because there is an agreement between them and not CIA. Granted that is a movie but shows you what could kind of come about....ie: Doing something on someones elses land without permission.

5. Richard Grenell is delivering docs to WH and others showing the Schiff and others "knew for a long time no Collusion".

- This one is all political to call for people to resign or get voted out. But could be interesting what he does show. Is it stuff we don't already know? Which I doubt it.

Just some things to look for in the news if it gets reported or not. Might not be big deals or could blow up on all ends. Like I stated once the Mueller Probe started.... is it a rabbit hole we want to go down. As you can see it is getting worse and worse by the day on all ends. Dem's and Republicans are getting torched and nervous. YES there will be some republicans who's names will be mentioned in this whole situation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> YES there will be some republicans who's names will be mentioned in this whole situation.


 Thats ok thow them all in prison, democrats and republicans. Time to flush the crapper.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I agree. They need to prosecute anyone who did anything illegal. We need to get our country back to the people. Not political pawns, not media, not elite, not big business, not big pharma, etc. To the people.

The people are not getting served.

I just was reading on twitter that Waters, AOC, Omar, etc are introducing a bill to give more people money. Then Rep. Crenshaw is making a bill to make it better if you go back to work than stay on unemployment. So who is actually working for the people.... someone who will give you free stuff or someone who will make it better for you if you work for yourself.

That is the question everyone needs to ask themselves.... you better having the government take care of you or are you better making your own decisions.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I saw an interview that Rand Paul did throwing Graham under the bus (kind of). And I agreed with it.

I wish I could find it again but am having a hard time. He basically stated that anyone who doesn't want FISA reform or to dig more deeply into the FISA stuff and prosecute are ones who want to keep abusing the system to spy on the people. He then mentioned Graham.

This is 100% true. I also remember back when some of the 9/11 terrorist stuff was getting passed that people talked about this would happen. Before anyone blames "Obama"... I think it was passed under Bush. But not 100% sure. But shows you how a bill that was meant to "protect" the country from domestic terrorists and what not got twisted to use as a political weapon and spy on citizens. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just heard fragments today, but I hear some judge is blocking the release of Flynn, and the dropping of his case. I think judges have seized power not give them by the people or the constitution. When are we sheep going to stop this?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I just heard fragments today, but I hear some judge is blocking the release of Flynn, and the dropping of his case. I think judges have seized power not give them by the people or the constitution. When are we sheep going to stop this?


I agree with this statement big time. How many more times are we seeing judges be "activists" more than just upholding the law.

This is all sides of the political spectrum. You know us "conservatives" talk about that old judge in texas who did the camps and work camps stuff. Well that is more "activism" than making "judgements".... or the judge in tx who wanted the hairdresser to say "Sorry" for being open during this pandemic. Or since this is a hunting web site.... How come judges don't up hold the strict penalties for game violations....ie: Maximum fines, jail sentences, seizure of equipment, etc. They more or less give slaps on the wrists. But this goes on what ever political side of the coin you are on.

But more and more judges are "grabbing" spotlights instead of just up holding the laws/penalties in place. It is again people who are supposed to represent the citizens are not doing that... they are representing only a portion.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So some more interesting twists in all of this...

1. The judge that wont sign off on this is asking a "retired" judge that was appointed by Obama to come and make a decision.... first off a RETIRED JUDGE.... and OBAMA appointed??? Third... this retired Judge has some connection to Eric Holder..... Not saying this retired judge wont uphold the decision to over turn Flynn. But when it is coming out that Obama and Holder could possibly have their fingers in this whole issue. It makes one wonder.

2. Clapper when asked if he would give testimony to any Senate or House committee that is looking deeper into this. He stated "because of my age and COVID I wouldn't want to do it until there is a vaccine" But didn't dismiss a possible "video" testimony. So is this why you are hearing more Dem's scream about vaccine now? I don't know but just something to think about when the goal posts keep getting moved. Also is that why Pelosi is afraid to get the House back to Washington. oke:

3. This is about Biden and his assault case/issue. More Dem's are saying that what Biden has stated is enough evidence for them. Remember Kavanaugh..... what has changed??? Funny how goal posts keep getting moved around. I am not saying Biden is guilty at all and we need due process to happen if they want to dig into it deeper. But will we hear the same speeches and dog and pony show we did with Kavanaugh.... where is Booker, Harris, Feinstein, Allysa Malano, etc. They are silent on this one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I dont know how anyone can vote democrat. The evidence of their corruption is overwhelming. Their hypocricy, double standard. and no economic knowledge (Trump proved that) should scare anyone away. What makes people vote for them?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I dont know how anyone can vote democrat. The evidence of their corruption is overwhelming. Their hypocricy, double standard. and no economic knowledge (Trump proved that) should scare anyone away. What makes people vote for them?


Real easy.....think about everything I dislike about most Republican candidates. Especially the clown prince we have in office now. Walk into the booth, fill out the ballot, turn it in, get a sticker that says "i Voted" and walk out. :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Honest question.... Is it Trumps personality you dislike the most or is it his policy? I am just curious.

The reason asking is because everyone I talk to that "hates" trump. I ask them the same question....and about 90$ of the time it is his personality. Which is fine and valid argument. But when I ask about his policy... most agree with it to a certain extent.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't like either. I do agree with his immigration ideas. Except for his waste of money wall. I also am against abortion. But that's it.

He lies. Basically only cares about his family. Anyone who remotely disagrees with him gets fired. Just look at his large turnover in high government offices. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Anyone who remotely disagrees with him gets fired.


This little tidbit from you will be interesting here shortly and fits in with the Flynn discussion. Did he not fire some people soon enough? Time will tell... Comey among others.

So his trade deals and wanting things favor the US isn't good? Look at what is going on now... his "America first" push about bringing all manufacturing back to the USA... and that was before the virus pandemic... is this a bad thing???

I totally agree with anyone who talks about his flaws... there are many on his "personal" level and the way he comes off. He is not your "typical" politician. His "lies" that people keep bringing up about 75% of them or more are because he over exaggerates...ie: This is the best thanks to me.... well they dig up the past and the numbers aren't the best. So they say he LIES. But the outcome is still positive for the nation. But yet all the focus on is that it wasn't 100% true. Anyways.... that is directed at the media more than anything.

But back onto Flynn and other things....

It will be interesting what is coming down the pipe especially if this judge keeps holding it up. There is precedence that he needs to follow and he is ignoring. Maybe the retired judge will move it along. We just don't know yet. But if this was a case involving a murder... and this evidence came out... he would be out of jail already.

Then lets look at the $3T bill that the house is voting on.... Some more tidbits popping up about it.

1. In the bill is a provision about a house recess until JULY 21!!!! Why cant they be back working. Many are in Washington Dem's and Republicans... why isn't Pelosi wanting to go back.... (SEE pervious about Flynn and Domino's might fall)

2. Cannabis is mentioned more than the word JOBS in this bill..... so again how is it a "jobs" "workers" bill when those are not mentioned most extensively.

3. Vote by Proxy.... yes she wants it available to House Reps to vote by Proxy. What this boils down to is that Lets say Plainsman, Myself and Ken are all representative...and we are discussing a bill. Ken can't make it to vote... Plainsman or myself can "vote" for him. Or use his vote. In a nut shell that is what it is.

4. Mail in voting is another thing... and just came out today that Nevada is looking into its "mail in" voting system and is finding fraud concerns. Which it should....along with provision about having to "count" ballots that arrive 10 days after the end of an election.

5. The Diversity studies in the cannabis industry... TWO STUDIES... yes they need two studies to see if the cannabis industry is diversified enough.... :eyeroll:

6. Wants to give more money to people and it would basically make it that anyone who is unemployed now because of COVID will make more money staying at home and doing nothing than if they go back to work full time..... WHAT????????????? How is that good for the country???

7. She isn't letting any debate or discussion happen on this bill. So no amendments, add ons, taking out things, etc. Is this how our government is supposed to work..... NOPE.... uke:

- She is getting lots of blow back on this by people in her own party as well. Which is great... this isn't how a bill should be passed... they need discussion on it.

- There are good things in this bill and many many bad things. It needs to get hashed out what should stay and what should go.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I sure hope we don't have to put up with 4 more years of this guy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I sure hope we don't have to put up with 4 more years of this guy.


 After all the things Chuck brought up that's all you have?????? oke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Another one bites the dust......Inspector general becomes latest watchdog fired by Trump.

"Steve Linick is the fourth inspector general or acting inspector general to be removed in six weeks, and his ouster goes to show that for Trump, getting rid of inspectors general without just cause isn't a coincidence -- it's a trend."

Why was he fired? Because he was doing an investigation of Trump's buddy Mike Pompeo....I mean.....come on the 4th guy in 6 weeks!!!!

No surprise......Who's next. After all the Clown Prince has 7 months of office left, before he gets fired :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why was he fired? Because he was doing an investigation of Trump's buddy Mike Pompeo...


 Where did you get that information?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Many places.....first in Minneapolis Star Tribune.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Many places.....first in Minneapolis Star Tribune.


 They actually said it was because of the Pompeo? I would think it was only Trump and those very close to him who would really know. I'm not a betting man, but i am darn sure this is made up by the Star Tribune or others they copied. More questionable unidentified sources. Something I would expect from CNN or the Huffing and Puffington Post. Reminiscent of the impeachment stories I think. I give it no credibility.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

How about these.....Breitbart and Newsmax. Of course they are conservative and are one sided in that direction. vs the ones you mention that are liberal in that direction.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Im still skeptical they would know.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken....

Yep Trump is living up to his tv persona... "your fired". I haven't seen anything yet on the "why" and I don't doubt your info. Too busy fishing before the mass rain I got in my neck of the woods.

I am also betting that the reason for the firing is what is coming to light as well and people not "moving" fast enough to appease the emperor.... Trump wants Obama and others in front of committees getting questioned and if things don't happen NOW.. it isn't fast enough for Trump. Which is one of his many flaws. oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Barr came out and stated that Biden and Obama are not in the crosshairs. It is people under them that are going to get seriously looked at for criminal charges because of the Flynn fiasco and the whole FISA, Russia, DOssier, etc.

So I am sure like I mentioned earlier..... Trump wants Biden and Obama on trial or go thru what he did. But I am sure the evidence doesn't support it and that is why he is firing people. He wants it to push thru anyways. But lets see what else comes out about the guy he just fired. Because like in the past more wrong doings or things show up about 2 weeks after he fires someone. It shows he did have a just reasoning not a "cover up" type thing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken....

It is coming to light about the IG firing..... He was "leaking" to the media. Again it is in the early stages of this whole firing. But that seems right on track for Trump firing people....ie: Any leaking he isn't tolerating. But again... it is in the early stages of this firing. We might find out more. :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump now saying that Pompeo asked him to fire Linick. Question is why. I haven't seen anything about him leaking to the press.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I saw the "leaking" on Twitter feeds of many people. Again don't know if it is true or not.

Also it is coming out that the IG was an Obama hold over. Again not saying the guy did or didn't do his job. But Trump came out and stated that any "hold over" that people want gone he is willing to fire them. So honestly it could be just as simple as that. Which he has every right to do. I have also read that this IG was doing an "investigation" about an arms deal to Saudi Arabia that Pompeo did. So who knows if that is the reason why as well. Or is it possible "leaking". time will tell on this one. But lets look at the track record... everyone he has fired and the media and dem's "kicked and screamed" about turns out he had just cause in firing them. Plus what is possibly coming down the pipe with the whole "obamagate" and Flynn.... this could be a reason why....ie: fear of possibly leaking of info to the press.

Also another little thing to keep an eye on.... ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT INQURY.... yep Nadler and others are trying to have the supreme court release grand jury stuff from Mueller so they can do another "impeachment" investigation. So if Trump does get re-elected we will have 4 more years of Russia BS to go thru. oke: oke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yes .......he was an Obama holdover. Only took Trump 3 1/2 years to fire him. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Also what about the other 3 that have been fired in the past 6 weeks???? One of my buddies doesn't like a guy so he is out the door? uke: uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

All Obama people should have been fired the first day Trump took office. I think most presidents fire the past administration people.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

The other three were also hold overs. That is what I read about those firings.

Also I think he is going to clean house on all Obama hold overs. Especially with what is coming to light with all of this. And his twitter, media rants of OBAMAGATE. Even though Barr said that Biden and Obama are not in his crosshairs. But with the Rice email released it is coming out that Obama/Biden cant play "stupid" about not knowing what was going on in the whole Flynn fiasco or the FISA stuff. I am not saying the Biden or Obama are "guilty" of anything but some of the underlyings who falsified documents and also Comeny, Brennan, and crew should be worried. Because they ignored all of the people saying... NO EVIDENCE and said "screw it" and went forward anyways. Plus people who omitted and falsified forms will get hammered. In the Rice email it states that Obama wanted it done by the book. Yet we know that this didn't happen... omitted forms, falsified forms, etc.

edit:

Rice email to herself...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/19/br ... sw.twitter


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

If that's true.....I look forward to him losing and then Biden needs to fire every Trump appointee the day after he takes office. He needs to have a list of replacements made up ahead of time. :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hey.... if biden wins and does it... it is his absolute right in doing so as long as they follow proper procedures.

But remember when Trump was elected every news outlet was screaming when he was firing and hiring people. They say... Never has a president done this. Which it might have been the first. But it has been showing that many have been working against him and leaking info and other stuff. But it seems he didn't do anything illegal with the firings. So if the next president wants to do it... they sure can.

here is a side story. My great grandfather used to work for the State Park system. When the Gov. who appointed him his position was not re-elected. He lost his job. So I know it is the nature of the beast when that happens. I know it isn't a "pleasant" side of the business but it happens.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Is it cheating to bring this up again? Would I be nasty yo say "I told you so".


----------



## Resky (Aug 13, 2012)

> If that's true.....I look forward to him losing and then Biden needs to fire every Trump appointee the day after he takes office. He needs to have a list of replacements made up ahead of time.


If only Trump had followed that suggestion he wouldn't have half the leaks and back stabbers he has had to deal with.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Resky said:


> > If that's true.....I look forward to him losing and then Biden needs to fire every Trump appointee the day after he takes office. He needs to have a list of replacements made up ahead of time.
> 
> 
> If only Trump had followed that suggestion he wouldn't have half the leaks and back stabbers he has had to deal with.


Exactly, and keeping part of Obamas addministration was a dumb thing to do. Perhaps not being a swamp creature he to begin with didnt know who to pick, and overestimated the integrity of the Obama creatures.
If I rdmember correctly Obama did get rid of everyone.


----------

