quote:
Nice strawman.

302s are witness testimonies. That is the evidence the SC will use to prove Flynn purjured himself. It is direct evidence of the crime he is being charged with and it was tampered with. If they are willing to manipulate 302s, what else might they have done during the course of this investigation?

It's like asking me to trust a law enforcement investigation from the same people caught planting evidence in the trunk of my car lol.

It's not a "strawman". It's a legit conversation to have and question to ask.

So Flynn comes out and says, "yep, we colluded and Trump knew it.". Same statements come from Papadopalous, Manafort, Gates, Kushner (he'll flip like a bitch), and Sessions. Incontrovertible evidence and witness testimony that it happened and Trump knew.

Then they say Flynn's guilty plea was under false pretenses and his testimony should be ignored.

So you call Trump a traitor or do you hang your hat on the investigation being improperly conducted during a single interview?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by McChowder

Hammond

Member since Dec 2006

5283 posts

Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:24 pm to mmmmmbeeer

quote:
It's not a "strawman". It's a legit conversation to have and question to ask.

It is a straw man because your "analogy" isn't comparable.

If your argument weighs heavily on witness testimony and you have evidence that investigators strong-armed witnesses using spoliated evidence and threats to their family to secure said testimony, no judge worth a damn would allow that.

Imagine any other criminal case proceeding under those conditions where you have law enforcement tampering with evidence lol. Even if you generated legit leads and evidence from that testimony, it is still inadmissible in a court of law. You couldn't use it to corroborate anything anyway because it is fruit from the poisonous tree.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board