For instance, apparently they did not include a 302 (which would be the notes from the original interview by the interviewing parties). The only notes regarding the interview were dated several months later. It's been "leaked" to the press by many sources that the FBI (at the time) did not believe he was lying (presumably because a 302 does actually exist). But Special Counsel did not provide any information to confirm or deny those reports, because they did not provide any documentation at all from the immediate aftermath of the interview.
The overall response from Special Counsel was light regarding information on their actions, with the emphasis that Flynn should have known better than to lie to Federal Officers.
Mueller's response is in many ways a non-response:
- References to public statements made prior to the interview
- Circumstance of the statements made during the interview
- The explanation that Flynn's criminal action was serious (regardless)
Reading the Special Counsel conclusion, it provides nothing either specific to Flynn or any sort of serious effort to defend the allegations that they trampled Flynn's fourth amendment rights. It's a basic argument that because Flynn has already admitted guilt, that the court should ignore everything else as moot.
This strikes me as a rather large cop-out. Similar to the attitude with the Paul Manafort trial, special counsel seems content to admit that while they may not have followed proper procedure, that it does not provide their targets with get out of jail free cards.
The difference here is that it really doesn't matter if the target is guilty or not. If you do not provide a U.S. citizen with their proper due process and fourth amendment rights, something as serious as a murder charge can be thrown out by a Judge. If a judge can throw out murder charges, then a judge can throw out a false statement charge. The importance and seriously of the evidence and charges involved is irrelevant if they are illegally obtained. If the Judge decides that General Flynn had his forth amendment rights undercut by the FBI, it is possible that he could toss the case.
109 comments:
"He should have known" is never a great defense for not advising someone of their Miranda rights.
Unless the person who is being interviewed is under arrest, the FBI agents are not legally required to advise the person of their Miranda rights.
If for any reason, that I was being interviewed by the FBI I would know damn well that if I lied I could face charges.
There you go again Scott. 599 words of dancing in circles in a vein attempt to protect the President
wp is correct about you now.
Roger...
The issue isn't Miranda rights (although that could rear it's ugly head as well). The issue is that prosecution in the case is required to turn over all evidence (including exculpating evidence) to the defense.
Disclosure is a serious requirement. Obviously Flynn ended up under arrest, so the fact that they claim it wasn't a criminal interview is irrelevant once they decided he lied. At that point, discovery provides that the defense is entitled to everything.
At this point, Special Counsel is refusing to turn over the initial meeting notes to the Judge, making it pretty much a no-brainer that they never turned them over to the defense.
Or they don't have proper notes, along with not following any proper protocol... in which case they might as well have been two guys off the street rather than FBI agents. You want to be treated like FBI agents, then you should follow FBI protocol.
If anything in those notes is exculpating and they were hidden, then almost any reasonable Judge would be forced to toss the charges. If they refused to make notes, and retroactively created a required document seven months later, then that is likely just as bad.
This was supposed to be a casual conversation. He even gave the agents a tour of his surroundings as he only had been in place for 4 days and was just getting acclimated. Comey has since said he broke protocol in sending these agents under false pretenses and this showed his TDS or deep state mentality. The specifics of what he supposedly lied about to my knowledge has not been disclosed. It obviously did not involve something factually apparent as the interviewing agents didn't note it or think he was lying.
And the pretext for why they were "interviewing" him, a false dossier created by a foreign Trump hater using foreign sources and paid for by Clinton, should never have been allowed to bring us to this point. And should have been investigated in a true "Russian investigation" on influence into American politics.
And actually original 302 do exist CHT. Comey testified to Congress that he had read them.
Biggest political scandal ever.
Unless the person who is being interviewed is under arrest, the FBI agents are not legally required to advise the person of their Miranda rights.
Wrong again. The rule is any statements you made before the Miranda Warning cannot be used against you. There's a very good chance this judge will vacate the plea agreement and dismiss all the charges with prejudice.
It is also quite possible that the judge will rule that any information obtained under this corercement cannot be used as evidence in any court case, as well as any evidence that was discovered from the information obtained by corecement.
C.H. Truth said...
Roger...
The issue isn't Miranda rights (although that could rear it's ugly head as well). The issue is that prosecution in the case is required to turn over all evidence (including exculpating evidence) to the defense.
the fact that you need to post a detailed comment explaining a detailed post is proof positive that the alky is the dumbest fuck to ever haunt this blog.
So to give an example...
I had a girl who stole jewelry from me back in the day when I managed jewelry stores. I was missing merchandise, had an idea, called in loss prevention. Loss Prevention (former cop) was able to get the girl to confess.
We called the cops, they arrested her, they took her "voluntarily" to her house where she turned over everything she had stolen (it was all in a dresser drawer).
a few months later I saw her walking around the mall. Never charged in spite of literally confessing to stealing tens of thousands in jewelry.
The cop (at the time explained it to me). Because their interest was going to be to recover the merchandise before she "lawyered up" they convinced her to allow them to search the premises. Technically perfectly legal as they were allowed into the home. But as soon as an attorney would take on the case, he/she would argue that the search was illegal because there was no warrant and that the defendant was not properly explained "all" of her rights.
In order to garner a conviction they would need to do things "by the books" which would include going to a judge and getting a warrant. They also realized that any confession that she made (either to our loss prevention guy or the cops) would probably not hold up because she hadn't talked to counsel yet.
The whole thing was extremely frustrating. She didn't do a day in jail. But the moral of the story was that the cops had specific hoops to jump through to do things by the books. Whatever reasons they provide to prevent an attorney from getting involved always comes back to bite them. It's as if nothing counts until the accused has gotten counsel and gotten advice from counsel. If their actions pre-counsel are not consistent with that counsel would have recommended, then (in spite of what we see on law and order) many of these people get out on fourth amendment arguments.
The cops didn't follow the proper procedures.
I think we should all take caution at the argument that cops (or in this case FBI agents) should be allowed to be deceitful, lie, hide things, and ultimately act on questionable pretenses...
and then turn around and toss someone in jail for not being completely honest in return.
that has been the recurring theme during special counsel.
They admit that they are not following protocol and procedure, but that it doesn't matter because those protocols and procedures do not technically represent a violation of fourth amendment rights. The only possible consequences would be internal work related discipline.
US district Judge Reed O’Connor, who ruled the Affordable Care Act “invalid” Friday, is no stranger to the conservative resistance to Obama administration policies.
US federal judge rules Obama healthcare law unconstitutional
O’Connor, 53, is a former state and federal prosecutor who was nominated to the federal bench in 2007 by George W Bush. He has been active in the Federalist Society, which describes itself as “a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order”.
In 2014, the Fort Worth-based judge upheld the constitutionality of an Arlington ordinance that bars people from handing out printed material at busy intersections and roads. The lawsuit had been brought by a gun-rights group called Open Carry Tarrant County. Although he upheld the ordinance, O’Connor ordered the city to pay the group’s coordinator $42,251 in damages.
That same year, he sentenced a man to more than 15 years in federal prison for kidnapping and severely beating a gay man he met through an online service, concluding the assailant kidnapped the man because of his sexual orientation.
In 2016, though, he blocked a federal directive that required public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. He ruled that Title IX, which the Obama administration cited in support of the directive, “is not ambiguous” about sex being defined as “the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”
Also in 2016, he struck down new US Health and Human Services regulations that advised that certain forms of transgender discrimination by doctors, hospitals and insurers violated the Affordable Care Act. He declared that the rules placed “substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover (gender) transition and abortion procedures.” A coalition of religious medical organizations said the rules could force doctors to help with gender transition contrary to their religious beliefs or medical judgment.
thanks for posting a partial biography of the judge who shitcanned 0linsky-care.
did you have a point to make alky, or are you just wasting bandwidth this morning?
He chose to lie, despite knowing that his words could be used against him and face criminal charges.
Sometimes only 19 words are sufficient to tell the truth.
Roger - in the case of the jewelry store situation. Had they waited for a warrant, the most likely chain of events would have been for someone to come to the house, move the merchandise, and then there would be no case either way. Without the merchandise, there would be no conviction. Especially if the confession did not hold up (because it was garnered pre-counsel).
So they had the choice of getting the merchandise or not getting the merchandise back for us.
Because the situation was "spur of the moment" and because "we" were conducting the investigation (rather than the cops) - the police never really had time to get their ducks in a row. Had the cops been in on the investigation with loss prevention, they could have gotten the warrant "prior" to the confession, and legally retrieved the merchandise.
As it stood, this was an unfortunate byproduct of how this sort of event went down. Not sure what the answer was in this case, other than we could have included the police prior (but that was not the concern of our loss prevention either - the concern was getting the merch back).
He chose to lie, despite knowing that his words could be used against him and face criminal charges.
Which is completely irrelevant.
Every case that a judge throws out because it involved a problem with the fourth amendment rights, will have the same exact element of a "guilty suspect".
The innocence, guilt, or idea that the suspect knew he/she was committing a crime does not EVER excuse the behavior of the cops.
Are you really gullible enough to believe that guilt and knowing that a crime has been committed is a legal defense for the cops not following fourth amendment protocol?
If this is the best argument Mueller has, then it's a pretty shitty one. He should be telling us why his team's actions were not in violation of Flynns rights (rather than focussing on Flynn's actions).
This is about the FBI, not Flynn.
Sometimes only 19 words are sufficient to tell the truth.
or, when dealing with an FBI request to have a conversation, 3 words are sufficient -
"go fuck yourself."
i honestly do not know how, after all that has transpired the FBI retains even the tiniest shred of credibility going forward. they are obviously corrupt to the fucking core, and what they might possibly lack in corruption they make up for in incompetence.
a new SAIC was just assigned to my region. i couldn't help but laugh when i saw him interviewed on the local news. he was prattling on about fidelity, bravery and integrity during the interview and i'm watching in disbelief at how full of shit the guy was.
Are you really gullible enough to believe that guilt and knowing that a crime has been committed is a legal defense for the cops not following fourth amendment protocol?
in the alky's case it's not about gullibility, it's about getting trump at all costs and by any means necessary.
the alky is perfectly fine with violating every single amendment of the constitution, except for the 25th, to achieve his goal of getting rid of trump.
THIS is how corrupt the left has become thanks to their affliction with TDS.
due process? presumption of innocence? ha! that's for suckers.
what they pulled on brett kavanaugh was just a warm-up for what they're willing to pull on trump.
Roger and others forget another amazing fact.
The idea that the FBI knew what Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador about is actually the fruit of an illegal "unmasking" of an American official on the other side of a conversation.
So the entire pretense of the conversation comes from illegally obtained information.
Flynn had every reason to believe that his talks with the Russian Ambassador were confidential (even if they were being recorded) - due to the fact that his side of the conversations are (by law) required to be completely redacted.
unmasking is another thing the left is perfectly fine with in pursuit of their political goals.
samantha power has a couple hundred unmaskings to her credit and not a thing was done to her despite the egregious illegality of it all.
Paul Sperry
BREAKING: Not only did Comey not fully archive Strzok's & Page's FBI text messages, but neither did Mueller, new IG report finds. In fact, Page's iPhone was "lost," then turned up wiped clean. Mueller's office told IG it checked & found "no substantive messages" on Strzok's iPhone
Mueller and Comey, if not criminal are then incompetent. And a friend should not be overseeing a friend, nor should two such critical "investigations" (Russian interference and Clinton emails) be run by the very same questionable operatives.
John Cardillo
Mueller had Strzok and Page’s phones wiped clean, withheld exculpatory evidence demanded by Judge Sullivan, and now we know there’s an exculpatory memo in DIA’s custody.
Gen. Flynn’s plea should be vacated, his charges tossed, and #Mueller shut down with his office sealed.
I agree (he's referring to a memo Grassley has asked to be declassifiedfrom DIA)
it's ironic that almost all of the criminality committed around this "russia, russia, russia" hoax has been committed BY law enforcement.
Trump’s fiercest backers enjoy his cruelty towards people they have decided deserve it. For you, the cruelty and childish insults is the point.
You a fucking piece of shit
the Judge asked for was not provided. This could suggest that Special Counsel is not being forthcoming,
And for someone who does not understand these things...You sure have a bias that mueller is at fault for something....Let me make this simple for you to understand, Lil Scotty....you are grasping at straws and if you think for a second Mueller is trying a fast one, you need to move to a country that thrives on fake conspiracy theories for news.....You got nothing but opinion and second hand information....IOW"S a big nothing burger....LOLOL
It's standard procedure when the FBI and other agencies interview a suspect, they already know the facts. They intentionally ask questions about specific issues is not a violation of the civil rights or their Miranda rights.
Paul Sperry an opinion writer at the NY Post....IOW's fake reporting..
John Cardillo of News Max fame and an ex NY Cop....
Yep....you got some credible BS there if you want fake news....LOLOLOLOL
Unknown, you are correct.
The underlying condition in regards to this President is that there is a deep state conspiracy to destroy the President because he beat Hillary Clinton.
"So the entire pretense of the conversation comes from illegally obtained information."
That is a complete lie.
When the FBI and other agencies interview a suspect, they already know the facts. They intentionally ask questions about specific issues is not a violation of the civil rights or their Miranda rights.
They already know the facts because they illegally tapped his phone.
it's ironic that almost all of the criminality committed
What is even more ironic rat fuck face is that all the voter fraud you have claimed to exist has been perpetrated by Republicans fucking with ballots.....that is amusing with its irony!!!
They already know the facts because they illegally tapped his phone.
Really asshole....you got proof of that...No....I thought so.....BTW....Having worked in the defense industry...you are made painfully aware every phone call is recorded....I'm sure that is also true in govmt....
When the FBI and other agencies interview a suspect, they already know the facts. They intentionally ask questions about specific issues is not a violation of the civil rights or their Miranda rights.
so now the alky is a self-proclaimed expert on the FBI and their information gathering techniques.
LOL.
suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure alky.
Roger Amick said...
Trump’s fiercest backers enjoy his cruelty towards people they have decided deserve it.
alky, liberals are the most cruel people on the fucking planet. cruel to the point of being downright evil. and they do it with glee.
Actually Roger just changes the subject, rather than address the concerns.
It's just more evidence of cognitive dissonance. He can't address something if he refuses to acknowledge it exists.
The underlying condition in regards to this President is that there is a deep state conspiracy to destroy the President because he beat Hillary Clinton.
well alky, that's because there is not and never was a legitimate reason for all this russia investigation nonsense.
you fucking retards ran the single most flawed candidate in the history of the fucking universe, and she lost. so rather than accept the result of a free and fair election, you clowns decided that a palace coup was in order.
and here we are.
we have ZERO russia collusion.
what we DO have is a quarter mil spent to keep a couple of whores quiet.
so this entire thing, like you alky, is a fucking joke.
all
because
hillary
lost.
roger is the embodiment of cog dis hitched to a wagon loaded with invincible ignorance.
how he manages to survive each day boggles the mind.
and lo iq commie once again chirps in with nothing except his idiotic babbling. He can't dispute any of the facts, in fact he is incapable of even recognizing a fact.
Not even a useful idiot.
. He can't dispute any of the facts, in fact he is incapable of even recognizing a fact.
Let me know when you post a fact rather than an opinion ....Idiot.....
FACT - lo iq commie is a babbling idiot
His response will once again prove it.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Obamacare Ruling Could Be a Nightmare for Republicans
David Nather:
“The Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature achievement, may be headed back to the Supreme Court after a conservative federal judge in Texas struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional last evening.
“This could be a nightmare for Republicans in suburbs and swing states.
“The midterms proved that the ACA has gotten more popular since the GOP started trying to repeal it — especially the protections for pre-existing conditions.
"If the law goes away, that goes with it. This is not the fight Republicans want to have."
Schiff Intends to Obliterate Trump’s ‘Red Line’
Jeffrey Toobin:
“President Trump said some time ago that he believes his personal finances should be off limits to investigators. In an interview with the Times in July, 2017, he asserted that if Robert Mueller, the special counsel, sought to investigate the Trump family’s business dealings he would be crossing a ‘red line.’ When, later that year, several news reports suggested that Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records relating to Trump’s businesses, the President reportedly told members of his staff that he wanted to fire Mueller in response.
“It was never confirmed whether Mueller had actually subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, but the President’s aversion to the scrutiny of his business interests caught the attention of Representative Adam Schiff, who will become the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence next year. On a recent weekend, at a busy restaurant in downtown Burbank, in the heart of his congressional district, Schiff talked about his plans for conducting an investigation that will be parallel to Mueller’s, probing Trump’s connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other places around the world.
“As Schiff described his approach, it became clear that he wasn’t just planning to cross Trump’s red line—he intended to OBLITERATE it.”
___________
High time to obliterate Trump too.
LMAO!!! James!!! Those people supposedly voted for the Democrats because they would "protect" Obamacare.
Now that they control the house, the pressure is on them to come through.
This is not changing the topic.
It's standard procedure when the FBI and other agencies interview a suspect, they already know the facts. They intentionally ask questions about specific issues is not a violation of the civil rights or their Miranda rights.
The Coldheartedtruth
Unknown, Scott posts his opinions, not the facts. The truth baffles him and he resorts to insults because of his limited intelligence.
The big question facing Republicans tonight is whether they will support legislation ensuring people with pre-existing conditions continue to receive equitable health insurance coverage. Throughout the campaign, Democrats pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans supporting the lawsuit while also telling voters pre-existing conditions protections would be preserved. The problem with that promise is that Congress has not put in place any safeguards or contingencies for those protections in the event the law gets overturned.
Several Republicans, in the weeks leading up to the election, introduced legislation forbidding insurance companies to discriminate against the 133 million Americans with health issues. But some of those proposals left loopholes that would have allowed companies to deny coverage or charge more based on gender or age. Moreover, there's risk in requiring companies cover sick people if the rest of the law isn't in place. To work, the law needed younger, healthy people to balance out the insurance pool. But without a mandate or subsidized plans those people are less likely to buy coverage, leaving insurance companies with a sicker, and thus expensive, consumer base.
Politically it's a nightmare for Republicans. Democrats, who after eight years on the defensive when it came to the Affordable Care Act, have found themselves with the upper hand. Recent polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 65 percent of Americans believe it's "very important" that insurers can't deny people coverage based on their health. Republicans have yet to pass a replacement for the ACA, something they've been promising for years.
After the news of the judge's decision broke, presumptive incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi immediately declared her intention to protect people with pre-existing conditions. The onus would then be on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican caucus to do the same.
Trump, who tweeted about the ruling, said Congress must pass a law that protects pre-existing conditions. But this is health policy in divided government (remember: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated") and it's not going to be so easy to replace the ACA if the Supreme Court ultimately strikes it down.
Copyright © 2018, Chicago Tribune
Scott, you enjoy Trump’s cruelty towards people you have decided deserve it. People like me.
For you, the cruelty and childish insults makes you feel like a winner. wp left for this specific reason.
I sometimes post breaking News. Not to change the subject. Just to let people know what is happening.
Disclosure is a serious requirement. In this case disclosure is not required by the law.
Obviously Flynn ended up under arrest, so the fact that they claim it wasn't a criminal interview is irrelevant once they decided he lied. Your own comment that he was eventually under arrest is legal proof that he was not denied his rights under the 4th amendment. He was NOT under arrest when they questioned him .
At that point, discovery provides that the defense is entitled to everything. Again Scott he was not denied his rights.
His lawyers are trying to figure out how to get the case dismissed upon appeal.
Several Republicans, in the weeks leading up to the election, introduced legislation forbidding insurance companies to discriminate against the 133 million Americans with health issues
What high blood pressure and cholesterol?
What a stupid statement. Recall Rog we’ve had this debate and I told you there might be 10 million uninsurable Americans and 37 or so states had high risk pools before bumblecare. 8 million are in the exchanges it is a defacto federal high risk pool now
I was right again!
I was right again!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! All you aright about is people need insurance because you prey on people to buy it....Your side campaigned on forcing pre existing conditions on insurance companies.....Laughable seeing Cruz and Walker and McSally all saying it would happen....Now you got the chance and I already am seeing you resisting that because it cost money!!!!! Maybe you will figure out the only way for that to happen is someone has to own it and it ain't the free market ! Cue a typical UGA graduate insult....LOLOLOL!!
Anonymous cowardly king obama said...
FACT - lo iq commie is a babbling idiot
His response will once again prove it.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Once again proving the only fact in your quiver is how to spell fact.....such an asshole !!!
How much pot have you smoked today, fatty?
You make even less sense than usual
The costs of insurance for people with preexisting conditions is going to skyrocket.
Families with children who were born with disabilities or other conditions will be paying unbelievable high rates.
Or families with older parents who are on Social Security and minimal pension benefits are going to be paying thousands if they aren't on Medicaid.
Kind of a joke that the guy who chanted, "Lock her up" would claim he didn't know he shouldn't lie to the FBI without a warning. https://t.co/IQliTLKy1e
You make even less sense than usual
As predicted....a sophomoric remark with no substance...all you got loser.....keep selling health insurance.....sad how little you know about it....LOLOLOL
The costs of insurance for people with preexisting conditions is going to skyrocket.
Roger carriers didn’t even charge for the most common conditions.
HBP
Cholesterol
Mild mental and nervous
6 months after a heart attack
most Type 1 diabetetics
That’s probably a 125 million of this supposed 133 million your author pulled from his ass
There are less than 10 million hardcore uninsurable
Or families with older parents who are on Social Security and minimal pension benefits are going to be paying thousands if they aren't on Medicaid.
They aren’t on medicare? I guess that blows hole in your Medicare for all solution
Roger...
My wife has preexisting conditions. Her insurance dropped the plan she used because of Obamacare, and since then her rates have tripled since she has had to use the exchanges (or garner other insurance).
Tripled, Roger.
Not because Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional.
But because it became the law.
My wife has preexisting conditions
I didn't know marrying you was a preexisting condition
Your anecdotal story misses one part....she has coverage which 3 years ago wouldn't be available to her due to her condition.....sorry, thanx to the ACA you actually have coverage....BTW....why isn't she part of her employers plan?????
Legal experts rip judge’s rationale for declaring Affordable Care Act invalid
They predicted that higher courts wil reject the Texas judge’s reasoning as a tortured effort to rewrite not just the health care law but congressional history. The decision sparked criticism but will not immediately change anything.
Of course we are 60 comments into this thread...
Roger has yet to even acknowledge the idea that Mueller has not provided the Judge with the information the Judge requested and that protocol was so poor, that required documentation doesn't even exist.
Cognitive dissonance demands that he ignore it.
thanx to the ACA you actually have coverage
No, thanks to ACA she has a deductible that is four times what it was and a monthly premium that has tripled. The plan covers less that her old plan.
She is technically a private contractor so she purchases her own insurance.
But hey, what does someone who purchases insurance herself with prexisting conditions know, anyways?
After all. Obama told you that the insurance would be better, that you could keep your old insurance, and that you could keep your doctor.
Obama told you. You believed him. End of story.
And note everyone of the conditions are pretty much lifestyle issues.
Like the morbidly obese needing hip replacements
No, thanks to ACA she has a deductible that is four times what it
And thanx to the ACA she still has coverage....would you rather she not???? Sure seems that is what you want.....
Like the morbidly obese needing hip replacements
And the stupidity continues unabated....Yep, your education to sell insurance was a waste of money...but I bet you got laid a lot in college because you certainly didn't learn shit....asshole
And sucking the chocolate fountain at the Golden Corral like it was water.
And thanx to the ACA she still has coverage....would you rather she not???? Sure seems that is what you want.....
Umm...fatty...cold said she had coverage...preACA... once she was on the books I gurandamnteeyou MN law would have prevented her from being dropped or singled out for an unusual rate increase HIPPA did that.
You don’t know...shit...about this topic
Yet you’ll yammer incoherently
And I’ll put a UGA sheepskin down over your DeVry equivalency
Your opinion is the idea that Mueller has not provided the Judge with the information the Judge requested and that protocol was so poor, that required documentation doesn't even exist.
It's a lie.
In about 95% of the time this is true.
Obama told you that the insurance would be better, that you could keep your old insurance, and that you could keep your doctor.
Obama told you. You believed him. End of story. Because he told you the truth.
You don’t know...shit...about this topic
BWAAAAAAAAA!!! And you are nothing but a loser salesman with a drinking problem and terminal stupidity...
Yet you’ll yammer incoherently
Whatever you say ace....you are the omnipotent asshole from georgia who is arrogant without substance....too fucking funny...
Since you are soon smart, maybe you can get a deal for CH and his preconditioned wife.......
Blogger Commonsense said...
And sucking the chocolate fountain at the Golden Corral like it was water.
Dumber than rocks shows up right on cue.....
FACT - lo iq commie is a babbling idiot
His responses will once again prove it.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Fact checked - CORRECT
It's a lie.
Cognitive dissonance.
They did not include the original 302 (if there even was one). The only documents included were written up 6 months later.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge the facts, doesn't make them untrue.
Scott. This is from The National Review. He destroys your opinion based conclusions.
POLITICS & POLICY
Did Flynn Lie?
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 15, 2018 2:07 PM
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn departs U.S. District Court in Washington, December 1, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The investigation was unfair from the start, but yes, it appears that he did lie.
At the outset, let’s get two things straight:
First, there is something deeply disturbing about the Obama administration’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation on retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn while he was working on the Trump campaign — and, ultimately, about the Justice Department and the FBI’s decision to dispatch two agents to interview Flynn at the White House, in a highly irregular manner, on Flynn’s third day as national security advisor.
Second, Flynn nevertheless lied to the agents.
These two matters have been conflated. We need to sort them out.
It is an article of faith among ardent Trump supporters not merely that Flynn should not have been investigated, but that he is innocent of the false-statements charge to which he pled guilty.
This has become impossible to buy — and not just because, to believe Flynn told the agents the truth, you must believe that (a) he lied to the court when he pled guilty and (b) he is still lying to the court in his sentencing memo, in which he claims that sharp FBI practices hoodwinked him into lying.
To Whom It May Concern: If you have been hoodwinked into lying, that means you have lied.
So, what is the theory that Flynn did not lie?
At the instruction of the FBI’s then-director and then–deputy director, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, two senior agents were sent to the White House on January 24, 2017, to interview Flynn. The interviewing agents were then–deputy assistant director Peter Strzok and an agent the Justice Department has intriguingly refused to name (but whom reporter Sara Carter, based on anonymous sources, has identified as Joe Pientka).
Let’s not get diverted for now on the controversial tactics used to arrange the interview; let’s stick to the interview. You would like to think the question whether someone has lied is black-and-white. Alas, it is often gray because a lie, by definition, must be intentional. An inaccuracy caused by a misunderstanding or a failure of recollection is not an actionable false statement or material omission. As we know from our own lives, we are given a great deal of inaccurate information by people who are not trying to deceive us, and we relate things incorrectly ourselves sometimes, maybe because we don’t remember them correctly, or our perception of an event was faulty.
As a result, when a trained interrogator obtains information known to be inaccurate, he or she does not jump to the conclusion that the witness is lying. A determination must be made whether the inaccuracy is witting or unwitting. That’s a judgment call.
Flynn was charged in one count with four lies, all in late December 2016, when he was working on the Trump transition and was designated to be Trump’s national security advisor:
For now, the question is: Did Flynn lie? The answer appears to be, yes, he did.
There are at least five reasons to draw this conclusion.
First, Flynn pled guilty in court. You can say the government was putting enormous pressure on him, but it is hard to believe a man like Flynn would plead guilty to lying unless he had lied. Note, moreover, that to argue that he did not lie to the agents necessarily means he lied to the judge when he pled guilty, and is continuing to lie to the judge in his sentencing memo (where, again, he admits lying but says he was pressured into doing so). That makes little sense to me.
Second, to reiterate, this is not a situation in which there is doubt about whether what Flynn said was false. He does not deny providing false information; the only issue is whether he did so deliberately. Flynn was a longtime intelligence pro who led the Defense Intelligence Agency. Could he get one or two things wrong? Maybe . . . but multiple inaccuracies about important communications with a rival foreign power? It is hard to believe that someone of Flynn’s high-level intelligence background could do that innocently. And how, then, could one argue both that this is possible and that Flynn was a good fit for national security advisor?
Third, Flynn’s defenders rely heavily on a red herring. They emphasize the congressional testimony from Comey and McCabe that the agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was not being deceptive. Even if this is so, however, what does that prove? If I lie to you but I do it convincingly enough that you believe me, that doesn’t mean I told the truth; it means you are wrong. Again, the question here is not accuracy; we know Flynn was inaccurate. The question is whether he intended to deceive. The best witness on the operation of Flynn’s mind is Flynn. The agents were making their best judgment based on his demeanor, but they are not mind-readers; Flynn, by contrast, knows what he was thinking.
Fourth, Flynn filed a sentencing memorandum in which he acknowledges that he lied but maintains that the FBI hoodwinked him into doing so. I don’t see how those who claim Flynn pled guilty to a non-crime under pressure can get around this. Flynn has plainly decided to challenge the basis of the plea (even though he is not seeking to withdraw the plea, which could blow up an agreement that avoided other charges). If that’s your position, and you didn’t lie, then you claim that you didn’t lie, not that you did lie but the FBI tricked you into it.
Finally, Flynn had a motive to lie. This brings us back to the Obama administration’s unjustifiable decision to investigate him. Obama’s Justice Department let it be known that a basis for its investigation was the preposterous Logan Act (a moribund, unconstitutional law that purports to prohibit private citizens from freelancing in foreign relations, and that has never been used to convict anyone in over 200 years on the books). Moreover, Obama officials leaked to the media that the “collusion” theory included the suspicion that Trump had cut a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop Obama’s sanctions in return for Russia’s assistance to Trump’s campaign.
Flynn is not a lawyer. He may not have realized how far-fetched these bases for investigation were. He may also have believed — with justification — that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI were hot to make a case on him. He thus had a motive to lie about his substantive contacts with a foreign government (Logan Act), and in particular about whether he discussed sanctions (because he feared being accused of a corrupt quid pro quo by zealous prosecutors, even though he had not done so). And even if he were not concerned about being the target of prosecutors, it would have been politically damaging to the incoming Trump administration if he had conceded discussing sanctions with Kislyak. While such discussions were not illegal, there was at the time a media frenzy that drew a false (but nevertheless popular) equivalency between any discussion on the topic of sanctions and a corrupt Trump–Kremlin deal. The political explosiveness of the sanctions topic explains why Flynn would lie to Vice President Pence and other Trump officials — and those lies gave him additional motive to lie to the FBI in order to keep his story straight.
When people who are in a strong position to provide accurate information provide false information, under circumstances in which they have a motive to provide false information, they are usually lying.
None of this explains why General Flynn was under investigation. None of it explains why the FBI interviewed Flynn when it had recordings of his conversations with Kislyak and did not need him to explain them. That is why, as someone who is sympathetic to Flynn and strongly suspects the government trapped him, I have been open to the possibility that he was pressured into pleading guilty to something he did not do. But I do not see how that makes sense. The information Flynn gave was inaccurate, he told a U.S. court he lied, he had a motive to lie, and his current position is that he was duped into lying.
Sounds to me like he lied.
Cognitive dissonance is required to be like you have become. He explained that the 302 you fixed into your arguments are not supported by the facts.
When people who are in a strong position to provide accurate information provide false information, under circumstances in which they have a motive to provide false information, they are usually lying.
None of this explains why General Flynn was under investigation. None of it explains why the FBI interviewed Flynn when it had recordings of his conversations with Kislyak and did not need him to explain them. That is why, as someone who is sympathetic to Flynn and strongly suspects the government trapped him, I have been open to the possibility that he was pressured into pleading guilty to something he did not do. But I do not see how that makes sense. The information Flynn gave was inaccurate, he told a U.S. court he lied, he had a motive to lie, and his current position is that he was duped into lying.
Sounds to me like he lied.
He acknowledges that he lied but maintains that the FBI hoodwinked him into doing so. Because they didn't provide the 302.
You're reaching for an explanation for his repeated lies. They tricked him into lying. I don't buy that.
He lied.
The 302 dated August 22, 2017, which Mueller submitted to the court, documents an interview of Peter Strzok, not of Flynn.
Peter Strzok was fired because he appeared to be politically motivated to destroy Donald Trump. The 302 is available.
Get back to sleep and dream of your hero Donald Trump is going ask you to be his Chief of staff.
A few other important facts.
The New York Times citing leaked anonymous sources within the FBI reported that Flynn had been cleared of any wrong doing the day before he was interviewed. Certainly may have put him at ease and certainly was a "planted" story.
Also this all occurred "before" Mueller. Apparently the entire interview was considered truthful until after Mueller and his gang of thugs took over. Something like 4 months later...
It looks like we have a good judge here (remember how the left was just recently quoting Roberts about no Republican or Democrat justices, at least until they rule against you...) and next week if Mueller didn't supply him with the documents he ordered (and they weren't in the online filing, though a 302 he didn't ask for was submitted), could mark a real turning point on this "investigation".
The one sided partisanship on display does make it look like a "witch hunt". Trump appears right again. But we will see. And whatever you do don't ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer present. The ones that didn't have one(Flynn, Papadopoulos) wish they had and the lowest "fruit" Carter Page steered clear of trouble by having one. Quite remarkably having heard him speaking on TV.
Roger
Again with the redirect.
The judge ordered Mueller and Special Counsel to turn over documents. The original 302 and other documents were not included.
Nobody is denying it.
End of story!
Nobody is suggesting that not including a 302 has ANYTHING to do with Flynn's testimony. So you bring it up why?
Because your brain cannot handle the point of all of this. You are incapable of objectivity!
You just posted about 4000 words of pure, complete, absolute...
Cognitive dissonance!
Congratulations!
Roger is advocating "Medicaid for Everyone".
Cognitive dissonance! By the author of the story that destroyed your bullshit opinion. You have not provided any facts to support your allegations.
Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2][3][4] A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.
I agree with McCarthy. I have been reading extensively about this situation since you started another one of your opinion based conclusions.
We disagree.
None of it explains why the FBI interviewed Flynn when it had recordings of his conversations with Kislyak and did not need him to explain them. That is why, as someone who is sympathetic to Flynn and strongly suspects the government trapped him, I have been open to the possibility that he was pressured into pleading guilty to something he did not do.
But I do not see how that makes sense.
I am not afflicted with Trumpism.
I strongly support Medicare for all.
You haven't been objective since Trump beat Clinton.
Roger...
Absolutely nothing you are typing about has anything to do with the thread.
Your cognitive dissonance makes you believe that it's about something completely different.
Perhaps you should reread the post Roger.
That... and put away the bottle.
Never once have I suggested that Flynn was telling the truth.
You are simply arguing with yourself and continuing to cut and paste irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the post.
Why do you do this?
because your brain refuses to even understand the point of the post.
You're incapable.
Perhaps it's alzheimer's (how old are you again?)
There is no evidence that the evidence was illegally obtained. Therefore his fourth amendment rights were violated. Therefore the evidence against him will not be dropped.
Alzheimer's disease can be detected by the age of 55 or so. You should definitely discuss it with your doctor.
Since when are you concerned with a lack of evidence?
There is no evidence that the evidence was illegally obtained. Therefore his fourth amendment rights were violated.
Except for the fact the evidence was obtain through a wiretap without Flynn's permission or without a court ordered warrant.
So tell me how is that legal?
Where is your source of information on this allegation? FYI if recorded on official government telephone conversations are not considered to be private.
Except for the fact the evidence was obtain through a wiretap without Flynn's permission or without a court ordered warrant.
1. The New York Times.
2. The FBI used the Logan Act as a pretense so it can't be on an Official Government Telephone.
3. Even it it was an "official government telephone", you don not forfeit your constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seazures by using it.
Roger how are Your Broncos?
, you don not forfeit your constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizures by using it.
Yes you do asshole....You have no rights on their phone or property....When you hire on, that information is made very clear to you.....Stop making shit up....it makes you look dumber than the goat fucker....!!!!!
Obama told you. You believed him. End of story. Because he told you the truth.
you don't win 2013's LIE OF THE FUCKING YEAR for telling the truth, alky.
about 90% of americans were completely satisfied with their health insurance before 0linsky-care. so like any good liberal, skeets came along and grenaded the whole fucking system.
The top 10 finalists for lie of the year....please note what the origin of them are....With the winner being the Parkland smear campaign that rectum breath embraced with gusto!!!
Here are the results:
"The Democrats want to invite caravan after caravan of illegal aliens into our country. And they want to sign them up for free health care, free welfare, free education, and for the right to vote." — Donald Trump on Oct. 26, 2018, at a rally — False
36%
"The Russian state has never interfered ... into internal American affairs including election process." — Vladimir Putin on July 16, 2018, in a press conference — Pants on Fire
15.2%
A "horrible law" requires that children be separated from their parents "once they cross the Border into the U.S." — Donald Trump on May 28, 2018, in a tweet — False
13.1%
Saudi Arabia has ordered $450 billion, "$110 billion of which is a military order," producing "over a million jobs." — Donald Trump on Oct. 20, 2018, to reporters — Pants on Fire
9.8%
"The deficit ... is coming down, and it’s coming down rapidly." — Larry Kudlow on June 29, 2018. in an interview — Pants on Fire
6.9%
Other (various answers)
4.1%
"Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on July 13, 2018, in an interview — Pants on Fire
3.9%
Says David Hogg of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., is a crisis actor. — Bloggers on Feb. 21, 2018, in multiple posts on the Internet — Pants on Fire
3.8%
"Democrats let him (cop killer Luis Bracamontes) into our country," and "Democrats let him stay." — Donald Trump on Oct. 31, 2018, in a tweet — Pants on Fire
3.6%
"U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills." — Donald Trump on July 31, 2018, at a rally — False
2.6%
"Forty percent of the guns in this country are sold without any background checks." — Bernie Sanders on Feb. 18, 2018, in an interview — False
1.1%
Results may not total 100 percent due to rounding.
about 90% of americans were completely satisfied with their health insurance before 0linsky-care
I'm sure you can provide a link for that beauty rectum breath...Me thinks you will scurry away like the little rodent you are...
Here is how I remember the pre ACA era.....asshole....
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article127783904.html
politicalwire.com is hilarious with the SNL spoof "It's Trump Life."
Also, all the other articles signaling how the Trump regime is disintegrating.
"It's A Trump Life," that is.
You have no rights on their phone or property....
You still have a right to privacy and a right against self-incrimination. That means you have to get a warrant no matter who owns the phone.
Yes you do asshole....You have no rights on their phone or property....
Gee Denny...
Then why the need for a FICA court if big brother just has the right to listen in on anyone?
Every executive in the executive branch has the right to believe that all of their phone calls are private. The FBI has zero authority to wiretap the executive branch calls. At least not without this thing called "a warrant".
The only time (such as with general Flynn) they listen in on those conversations is if the foreigner they are talking to is being wired. Even then, they are required to redact all information about the American.
Unless, of course, they have reason to believe that a criminal action is taking place, then they are allowed to "unmask" someone under the most extreme conditions. But Flynn was not breaking any laws, and nobody should have been listening in to any of those calls.
The Logan act is a debatable law. But for now it is the law. The FBI was investigating the security secretary for possible criminal wrongdoing while he was the Security secretary for the United states.
For partisan purposes you and your President don't give a damn about the Security of the nation.
That's what is so disgusting about this situation.
Once again this is your opinion and nothing more.
But Flynn was not breaking any laws, and nobody should have been listening in to any of those calls.
Trump has castrated you.
Yes, they have reason to believe that a criminal action is taking place.
He was endangering the lives and security of the United States of America.
So apparently Roger thinks we should operate as a police state.
John Kerry should be in jail for openly defying the Logan Act.
That if Flynn said something like "we will have more flexibility after the election" and didn't admit it in a casual conversation with FBI agents he should be imprisoned.
That the illegal leaking of highly confidential material is OK if it is against a Republican. Since really anyone can be caught in a lie by how a question is worded ever agreeing to meet with an FBI agent without a lawyer is agreeing to commit a felony.
And if you have enough lawyers and the support of the deep state you can get away with anything. Why did Hillary and OJ need 9 lawyers when interviewed/tried. Why did Comey need 2 lawyers when talking to Congress if he was going to tell the truth?
It is a rigged system and the more power the government gets the worse it's going to get. Unless Trump prevails.
The Logan act is a debatable law. But for now it is the law. The FBI was investigating the security secretary for possible criminal wrongdoing while he was the Security secretary for the United states.
No, Roger. Any law ceases to be a law when nobody is charged with it.
Furthermore, it's been well known to all that "transition teams" have their own set of guidelines and procedures (that include means to speak to foreigners, etc) and that they have never been judged (never, ever, ever, never, ever) as being under the scope of the Logan Act.
Unless you would like to argue that the entire concept of a "transition team" are illegal under the "Logan Act".... there is no reasonable manner to conclude that Flynn was breaking any laws.
So pleaaaaasssee... don't pretend that this was a valid reason for the FBI to be wire tapping someone's phone or unmask conversations.
Unless you would like to argue that the entire concept of a "transition team" are illegal under the "Logan Act".... there is no reasonable manner to conclude that Flynn was breaking any laws.
precisely. what the alky fails to understand is that if the mueller team has been reduced to charging someone under the logan act, it implies that their entire case is bullshit and this whole charade has been nothing more than an extravagant waste of time and money.
part and parcel of establishing any new incoming administration is communications with other nations - friend and foe - around the world.
For partisan purposes you and your President don't give a damn about the Security of the nation.
That's what is so disgusting about this situation.
geezus alky, you can be such a drama queen.
your dear leader gave iran nuclear weapons capability, and 50 fucking billion fucking dollars in cold hard cash.
when trump comes anywhere CLOSE to such a blatant disregard for our national security we'll let you know.
Ch our esteemed toilet bowl cleaner opined that...
Any law ceases to be a law when nobody is charged with it.
I'm sure 1 or 2 people will agree with your non learned opinion.....way too amusing even for you Lil Scotty.....
I'm sure 1 or 2 people will agree with your non learned opinion
Nobody that understands the law. There is precedent out there for laws that are considered Desuetude. Laws can be considered desuetude (or void) for a variety of reasons, but namely if (according to the court):
There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and there has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute.
This is why you don't (and won't) see things like sodomy laws, or other ridiculous laws still on the books enforced. They would be tossed out as desuetude laws.
Post a Comment