[Wulfschilde]

Just to recap what I'm personally aware of:

- interview records (302 forms) were admittedly illegally altered.
- FBI director wrote down that they were trying to entrap him, which is a crime on their part.
- recently Crowdstrike admitted that they never had any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC server and that there never was any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, so there was no underlying cause for their investigations.

America isn't really one country anymore, that stuff isn't how you should treat your own citizens, yet tons of people are trying to defend the indefensible without actually addressing any of it.

[Finfinder]

They sound like good policies. Still, even the best policies have limited effect if the people behind them are dicks. But apparently there was just barely enough actual virtue here that the system worked and they got found out.

The system worked because the Democrats failed at their attempt to rig the presidential election.

[Wulfschilde]

The system worked because the Democrats failed at their attempt to rig the presidential election.

Yeah, if Trump had lost they would have gotten away with it for sure. They tell us that they want to destroy America and they fucked up and got caught. The question now is if the right people have the guts to hold them accountable or if they sit on their hands and let them try again because they would, it's what they keep telling us.

[jimjam]

Since @late has avoided answering the question at least 5 times now maybe you can answer for the forum leftists.

What was the FBI interviewing Flynn for in the first place? What was the crime ?

No for 2 reasons: I don't give a shit about Flynn and have not wasted my time becoming familiar with his case and …. I am neither a "leftist" nor a "rightest". ie. I consider both Donald and Hillary to be pieces of shit. I'll leave the simple minded left/right nonsense to those who have difficulty thinking for themselves.

[late]

No for 2 reasons: I don't give a shit about Flynn and have not wasted my time becoming familiar with his case and …. I am neither a "leftist" nor a "rightest". ie. I consider both Donald and Hillary to be pieces of shit. I'll leave the simple minded left/right nonsense to those who have difficulty thinking for themselves.

Remember the imaginary child prostitution ring in the imaginary cellar of a pizza parlor?

This is another conspiracy theory at that level of stupid.

[Doug64]

@late

In this case, Tribe is 100% wrong. The FBI included in its Russian investigation an investigation of Flynn, which finds nothing. The investigation is closed until Strzok, among others, intervenes to get the decision reversed because “7th floor” (upper leadership) wanted it kept open. Then, not having found any grounds on which they could charge Flynn with a crime, they set out to create one through a perjury trap—a trap that failed, in that the interviewers came away from the interview believing that Flynn had told the truth as he remembered it. In spite of the interviewers‘ opinion, the FBI leadership decide to bring charges against Flynn anyway, after Strzok extensively edited the 302 from the interview, taking three weeks to submit the 302 rather than the five days required by FBI procedure—Strzok tells his lover Page that he is trying to avoid completely rewriting it and so losing the official writer’s ‘voice’; Strzok gets Page’s input on the editing, though she was not present at the interview. With the altered 302 for a basis, the government extorts a guilty plea from Flynn (with the help of Flynn’s attorneys) by threatening him with bankruptcy and the possibility of the lead prosecutor indicting his son.

The behavior of the FBI in this case is more in keeping with the traditions of the KGB, and all fruit of this poisonous tree should be rejected.

[late]

In this case, Tribe is 100% wrong.

Did you like the pizza?

"Many of these claims have already been cast aside by independent fact-checkers, rebutted by Justice Department lawyers and dismissed out of hand by a federal judge. But seizing on a batch of documents unsealed Wednesday, Trump and his allies are claiming there are new and explosive reasons to doubt Flynn's prosecution, raising the chances that a pardon is in the works.
The files -- FBI emails and memos -- shed new light on how FBI officials carefully prepared to interview Flynn in January 2017. Flynn supporters point to one note where an FBI official asks, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Other notes show how the FBI planned to refresh Flynn's memory if he lied to them.
Despite Trump's fanfare, the new information is not a clear-cut breakthrough for Flynn, who is trying to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea, when he admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official. A federal judge still needs to rule on whether to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea -- a decision likely weeks or months away, which could become moot if Flynn is pardoned.

The latest round of table-banging from Trump and allied media outlets ignores basic facts about Flynn's case."

The rest at the link:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/flynn-trump-conspiracy-theories-pardon/index.html

[Hindsite]

Did you like the pizza?

The pizza was just a left-wing distraction from the truth.

"Many of these claims have already been cast aside by independent fact-checkers, rebutted by Justice Department lawyers and dismissed out of hand by a federal judge. But seizing on a batch of documents unsealed Wednesday, Trump and his allies are claiming there are new and explosive reasons to doubt Flynn's prosecution, raising the chances that a pardon is in the works.
The files -- FBI emails and memos -- shed new light on how FBI officials carefully prepared to interview Flynn in January 2017. Flynn supporters point to one note where an FBI official asks, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Other notes show how the FBI planned to refresh Flynn's memory if he lied to them.
Despite Trump's fanfare, the new information is not a clear-cut breakthrough for Flynn, who is trying to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea, when he admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official. A federal judge still needs to rule on whether to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea -- a decision likely weeks or months away, which could become moot if Flynn is pardoned.

Now you are beginning to understand. General Flynn is innocent one way or another.
Praise the Lord.

[blackjack21]

I'm guessing Prof Tribe doesn't have to stay up waiting for your rebut.

No. He doesn't. He's irrelevant in this process.

Or the judge...

Judges get overruled all the time by appellate courts. There's nothing new about that. However, in this case, the DoJ withdrew their case. Again, it matters little what I have to say about the case, but it does matter when the DoJ admits that the FBI acted improperly.

Just to recap what I'm personally aware of:

- interview records (302 forms) were admittedly illegally altered.
- FBI director wrote down that they were trying to entrap him, which is a crime on their part.
- recently Crowdstrike admitted that they never had any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC server and that there never was any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, so there was no underlying cause for their investigations.

America isn't really one country anymore, that stuff isn't how you should treat your own citizens, yet tons of people are trying to defend the indefensible without actually addressing any of it.

As far as I know, the determining factor in Flynn's case was the FBI memorandum. However, I think the 302 stuff will be relevant to charges Durham may file.

As for Crowdstrike, I think they admitted this in classified Congressional testimony much earlier. It's just that it was recently declassified. Apparently, the anti-Trump cabal knew the contents of all the testimony and tried to keep it classified. Specifically, CrowdStrike's CEO testified that there were "indicators" that it was Russia, that information was "exfiltrated" and that there was no "concrete evidence" that it was Russia. The DNC never turned the server over to the FBI. The so-called 17 intelligence agencies all purportedly concurred with CrowdStrike's report--none of them having reviewed the DNC server themselves. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency weighed in on this for some reason, even though the alleged Russia hack has nothing to do with geospatial information. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office of National Security Intelligence regarding drug trafficking somehow weighed in--Coast Guard Intelligence, the Sixteenth Air Force, and so forth all weighed in on something way outside of their area of expertise. I think for people like @late, this eminence front is supposed to be intimidating enough that you are not to question their conclusions

At any rate, from straight documentary evidence and testimony under oath, there has never been a solid foundation for any investigation of Trump or his campaign whatsoever.

The system worked because the Democrats failed at their attempt to rig the presidential election.

A lot of people were prosecuted or subject to interrogation that would not normally have encountered any such thing if the Democrats were not trying to construct a media narrative to undermine Trump. What it shows is that there are some really bad people in Washington.

The question now is if the right people have the guts to hold them accountable or if they sit on their hands and let them try again because they would, it's what they keep telling us.

Even if some people are caught, tried and convicted, I still think the establishment actors will still be inclined to wrongdoing.

I consider both Donald and Hillary to be pieces of shit. I'll leave the simple minded left/right nonsense to those who have difficulty thinking for themselves.

Yes, but I don't think I've ever seen you come to anyone's defense who was wrongly prosecuted.

Remember the imaginary child prostitution ring in the imaginary cellar of a pizza parlor?

No. Do you remember any FBI investigation of such a thing? Do you remember the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee commenting on any such thing? Do you remember anybody being called as witnesses, knowing they were innocent, and being subjected to prosecution? I'm guessing the answer is no to all of the above.

This is another conspiracy theory at that level of stupid.

Criminal conspiracy is part US criminal law. It was in fact the basis of the charges leveled against Trump and his campaign. Yet, you never once called that a conspiracy theory over the last three years to my knowledge. Mueller's report detailed what a criminal conspiracy was, and why they never were able to build a case against Trump. In actual fact, conspiracies are easier to prove because they only have to prove that two or more people took affirmative steps in the commission of a criminal act. In the instant case, you have illegally modified 302s and memoranda detailing that they were trying to get Flynn fired. So you already have criminal behavior. The question is whether they can piece together at least two affirmative acts by two or more people. Strzok is an easy one.

Bizarrely, Comey stated in public statements that he was the mastermind in sending people over to the White House to interview Flynn, and mused that he got away with it because Trump was disorganized.

Again, I've never heard you criticize Comey or Strzok for this. So I'd leave left-vs-right debates alone too and focus more on your basic sense of ethics. You have every right to dislike anyone you want for whatever reason (even racism, sexism or homophobia). You do not have the right to subject them to the loss of their rights without just cause. That part of your character seems to be missing from these debates. You just seem to go silent when people you don't like are subject to baseless or unlawful prosecution. Doesn't that aspect of your character bother you in the slightest? I mean, I've openly said I think people like Roger Stone are kind of gadfly douchebags. I just don't think it's right to entrap people and imprison them to create a media narrative in furtherance of a hoped for political outcome. That's just ugly.

The investigation is closed until Strzok, among others, intervenes to get the decision reversed because “7th floor” (upper leadership) wanted it kept open.

Apparently, according to his public bragging about the same, this came straight from James Comey.

Then, not having found any grounds on which they could charge Flynn with a crime, they set out to create one through a perjury trap—a trap that failed, in that the interviewers came away from the interview believing that Flynn had told the truth as he remembered it.

Correct.

In spite of the interviewers‘ opinion, the FBI leadership decide to bring charges against Flynn anyway, after Strzok extensively edited the 302 from the interview, taking three weeks to submit the 302 rather than the five days required by FBI procedure—Strzok tells his lover Page that he is trying to avoid completely rewriting it and so losing the official writer’s ‘voice’; Strzok gets Page’s input on the editing, though she was not present at the interview. With the altered 302 for a basis, the government extorts a guilty plea from Flynn (with the help of Flynn’s attorneys) by threatening him with bankruptcy and the possibility of the lead prosecutor indicting his son.

Well, to put a finer point on it, the DoJ did not prosecute Flynn directly. It was done through Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He and Comey have worked together for years. So it was likely Comey that convinced Mueller to proceed against Flynn. They hated Flynn at the FBI, because Flynn was a whistleblower against Andy McCabe's behavior when Robyn Gritz accused McCabe of sexual harassment. It's another case of the Democrats claiming to support women, but not actually doing so.

The behavior of the FBI in this case is more in keeping with the traditions of the KGB, and all fruit of this poisonous tree should be rejected.

I would say the KGB was probably more competent. There was some very clear pettiness coupled with extreme prejudice in the case of FBI leadership. I think Christopher Wray may be the next to walk the plank, as he does not seem to have done anything substantive such as a truth-and-reconciliation commission to get all the facts out there, get the bad actors out of the FBI and restore its reputation. You cannot successfully cover up something like this or just make it go away. The bad actors need to be purged and punished.

[Hindsite]

I think Christopher Wray may be the next to walk the plank, as he does not seem to have done anything substantive such as a truth-and-reconciliation commission to get all the facts out there, get the bad actors out of the FBI and restore its reputation.

My impression of Christopher Wray is that he just wants to do his time with as little work and controversy as possible. I don't see him doing anything more than he has already been doing.

[blackjack21]

My impression of Christopher Wray is that he just wants to do his time with as little work and controversy as possible. I don't see him doing anything more than he has already been doing.

My impression is that he's a bad apple. He was recommended by members of both parties. I used to think that was a ringing endorsement, now I think it is a red flag. He's an establishment guy who's hoping to run out the clock.

Now, we've all had an opportunity to look at this case and as Finfiner has pointed out repeatedly, none of the pro-establishment people can find a lawful predicate for interviewing Flynn, have no comment to make on the goal using the transcript and questioning to create a perjury trap and then trying to elucidate the purpose--to get him fired or to prosecute him. It's clear the entire thing was a political hit, and these people frankly do not have a problem with this kind of conduct.

It is as clear as can be. Even Obama is getting panicky now:

Obama Sounds Alarm After DOJ Drops Criminal Case Against Flynn

How is the rule of law at risk when the DoJ drops a case that should never have gone forward in the first place? Our basic understanding of the rule of law is at risk? How? Obama's legacy is about to get blown to smithereens and I think he knows it.

President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury..

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent...

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case.That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan. How is that for precedent?

The deep state is spooked. They know they're caught. Now the drip drip is going the other way.

[Hindsite]

It is as clear as can be. Even Obama is getting panicky now:

Obama Sounds Alarm After DOJ Drops Criminal Case Against Flynn

How is the rule of law at risk when the DoJ drops a case that should never have gone forward in the first place? Our basic understanding of the rule of law is at risk? How? Obama's legacy is about to get blown to smithereens and I think he knows it.

The deep state is spooked. They know they're caught. Now the drip drip is going the other way.

They know that they must win in 2020 at all costs to stop that drip drip. That is the only thing I can see that can save them.

[SpecialOlympian]

I, too, consider it a set up when I knowingly lie to law enforcement. Maybe Trump should stop surrounding himself with morons who fall for obvious traps like, "Why don't you keep talking to us and try not to lie?"

I guess this is the thread where reactionaries cosplay as people who care about the law as written and intended, rather than seeing it the administration of it as an exercise in power by whoever happens to be in charge at the time. Also, we're going to pretend Flynn's career (or at least the end of it) wasn't a flaming dumpster fire, and that he was exactly the type of moron who thinks he's smart enough to just keep rambling moronic bullshit at law enforcement until he commits a crime.

Like it is fucking hilarious that a bunch of reactionaries would have never considered the FBI bad until they began worshipping a president who surrouneded himself with incompetent criminals.

[Hindsite]

Admin Edit: One-line

[ingliz]

Question...

If as you say he pleaded guilty to "protect his son" and his son had done nothing that needed his protection, why did he plead guilty?

[SpecialOlympian]

Question...

If as you say he pleaded guilty to "protect his son" and his son had done nothing that needed his protection, why did he plead guilty?


:?:

Because he's just that nice of a guy. I bet he'd even plead guilty to help out a dirty lib like you. I just remembered the FBI was bad 3 days ago and now I care about it more than anything, I'm a genius.

[blackjack21]

If as you say he pleaded guilty to "protect his son" and his son had done nothing that needed his protection, why did he plead guilty?

Lawyers cost a lot of money. There are a lot of people who take plea deals. Generally, non-violent stuff like shoplifting, disorderly conduct, and DUIs have plea deals where you get a much better deal financially than if you go to trial. For standard crimes, if you don't have a pre-existing record of serious criminal behavior (misdemeanors or felonies), there is what is called a "pre-trial diversion" program for first time offenders. So the person caught shoplifting, or screaming obscenities at the cop generally gets a mulligan with no criminal record, but they are on probation to not commit any other crimes and generally have to take some kind of remedial course like anger management. Some crimes don't have pre-trial diversions. For example, say you get a DUI but your BAC was below the threshold for added penalties, or you won your administrative case at DMV, going to trial is probably going to cost you $5000 in legal fees alone, and if you lose they will send you straight to jail for fighting your case. If you take a plea for wet-and-reckless, you pay a $1000 fine and you have to go take alcohol classes or mandatory AA meetings and your done. They can revive your case as a first instance offense if you're caught drinking and driving within X number of years. It's much better than going to jail, and prosecutors rack up a win for their side. That's why statistically, it looks like prosecutors nearly always win, because plea agreements are made to look more attractive than going to trial.

The case against Flynn is different, because they conducted a criminal interview without a predicate to substantiate it, and they did so with the intent to trip Flynn up. They already had a verbatim transcript of his call. They didn't admonish him that it was a crime to lie, that he should have an attorney present, etc. So they used a line of questioning to try to create the impression of Flynn lying. The interviewers thought there was nothing wrong with his answers in that he did not exhibit any behavior suggesting he was deliberately withholding information or deliberately providing false information. So they recommended the case be closed. That's when the FBI political leadership got involved. So they intentionally manufactured the crime.

Defense lawyers for federal courts are notoriously expensive. You can get a free worthless attorney at government expense if you are broke; otherwise, it's incumbent upon you to furnish your own legal defense. Flynn ended up having to sell his house to meet his attorney's fees. So agreeing to a plea deal also saves considerable attorney's fees.

[late]

The pizza was just a Right -wing distraction from the obvious.

This country needs a lot more padded rooms.

[jimjam]

No. Do you remember any FBI investigation of such a thing? Do you remember the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee commenting on any such thing? Do you remember anybody being called as witnesses, knowing they were innocent, and being subjected to prosecution? I'm guessing the answer is no to all of the above.

I do not remember any of this nonsense because I have ignored it. Just one more chapter of the trump Circus of Lies & Bullshit that has become very boring. You are rolling in dough out there …. have you made any contributions to a food bank lately?

jimjam wrote:Remember the imaginary child prostitution ring in the imaginary cellar of a pizza parlor?

Um …… do you remember that Late posted this. I do remember, however, that Obese Donald's personal lawyer, W.Barr, obeyed his master and made a farce of the American "legal system" by dropping charges against one of The Fat Man's friends. Do you really believe all the lies and deception emanating from Rush Wind Bag's mouth are you just regurgitating the party line because their policies have paid off the Rich Boys Of America? Look, trump and his gang of thieves have become very repetitive and boring. Just take them all out with the trash next Nov. wipe the stage clean with Clorox wipes & work on getting Godfather trump in jail.

I don't think I've ever seen you come to anyone's defense who was wrongly prosecuted.

Does Lee Harvey Oswald count? He was judged and executed without a trial by Alan Dulles. BTW … if the nonsense you regurgitate is any indication ….. you probably believe the Warren "Report"

Time for a bowel movement ….. I'll leave you to ponder pizza conspiracies and poor Honest As The Day Is Long Flynn and the rest of Donald's gang members.

[Wulfschilde]

Maybe Flynn was intimidated because he was under the impression that they were willing to cook up charges. I wonder why he would think that?

Like seriously, that argument is such shit. "Why would an innocent person plead guilty to help his son? This totally absolves the FBI of entrapment."