Author Topic: The Great Unmasking  (Read 6624 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #100 on: May 20, 2020, 08:17:55 AM »
Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #101 on: May 20, 2020, 08:28:52 AM »
Quote
wmLambert: That is one of the new strategies out of the Democrat Party.

The Republic Party...

Quote
theDeamon: No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

It takes a certain amount of sophistry to say it doesn't essentially boil down to a Logan Act Prosecution by another means.

Lying to the FBI is a §1001 violation.  That's what he was charged with and pled guilty to.  Give it up trying to make it about the Logan Act, since that was not used in this case, as it's never been used in any federal prosecution.  It's like an irresistible itch to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory every time a Republican or Trump crony commits a crime for not only why they didn't do it, but the FBI or the Democrats are the guilty ones themselves.

Why was McCabe not charged you think? He clearly lied, free pass. Why?

Have you looked up the reasons people plead guilty even though they’re innocent? You really should get informed on this topic.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #102 on: May 20, 2020, 08:40:32 AM »
Have you looked up the reasons people plead guilty even though they’re innocent? You really should get informed on this topic.

Which of the reasons do you think applied? Poor black kids without access to good legal representation aren't in the same boat as the former NSC worth somewhere in the millions of dollars.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #103 on: May 20, 2020, 08:41:43 AM »
Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Flynn FBI 302.  You couldn't google it?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #104 on: May 20, 2020, 08:47:11 AM »
Flynn "also agreed that he lied about his lobbying activities in federal filings related to work on behalf of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 2016 campaign"

Putting aside the rest of this issue, if you're going to hang your hat on this then by this standard the vast majority of the Congress should probably be charged by the FBI for tax fraud.
Except that isn't tax fraud - it is another instance of lying to the FBI and impeding an investigation.  The point being, that charge also had nothing to do with the Logan Act, no more than lying about knowledge of his or other people's activities related to potential election law violations is.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #105 on: May 20, 2020, 08:50:37 AM »
Quote
Why was McCabe not charged you think? He clearly lied, free pass. Why?

The FBI didn't think there was justification.  Don't get distracted.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #106 on: May 20, 2020, 09:07:31 AM »
Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Flynn FBI 302.  You couldn't google it?

I see you don't know what's going on again.

Quote
According to evidence DOJ disclosed this month, FBI officials subsequently edited the original Flynn interview report. After Strzok and fellow special agent Joe Pientka interviewed the Trump adviser, Pientka wrote the original interview report, known as a 302, then Strzok heavily edited it, so much so that he worried he was “trying not to completely re-write” the memo. Then FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who neither attended the interview nor is an agent, edited it again, according to the DOJ evidence. And then that version of the 302 was never given to the court.

Pientka wrote the 302 and he should have been the one to submit it within 5 days of the interview. That never happened.

Instead, Strzok did a massive rewrite. Then, he handed it off to Lisa Page, who wasn't even present during the interview, and she did some edits of her own. After 3 weeks of edits, those two submitted the 302 you're pointing at as evidence.

Not submitting the 302 in 5 days as required by FBI procedure can, and does, derail prosecutions. Having one submitted by someone that wasn't even present, I don't even know if that's legal but it certainly invalidates it.

So, let's see the 302 written by Pientka.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #107 on: May 20, 2020, 09:08:49 AM »
Have you looked up the reasons people plead guilty even though they’re innocent? You really should get informed on this topic.

Which of the reasons do you think applied? Poor black kids without access to good legal representation aren't in the same boat as the former NSC worth somewhere in the millions of dollars.

So you think that applies solely to poor black kids? In all the history of the US, only poor black kids plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit?  What an ignorant thing to say.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #108 on: May 20, 2020, 09:22:21 AM »
Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Flynn FBI 302.  You couldn't google it?

I see you don't know what's going on again.

Quote
According to evidence DOJ disclosed this month, FBI officials subsequently edited the original Flynn interview report. After Strzok and fellow special agent Joe Pientka interviewed the Trump adviser, Pientka wrote the original interview report, known as a 302, then Strzok heavily edited it, so much so that he worried he was “trying not to completely re-write” the memo. Then FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who neither attended the interview nor is an agent, edited it again, according to the DOJ evidence. And then that version of the 302 was never given to the court.

Pientka wrote the 302 and he should have been the one to submit it within 5 days of the interview. That never happened.

Instead, Strzok did a massive rewrite. Then, he handed it off to Lisa Page, who wasn't even present during the interview, and she did some edits of her own. After 3 weeks of edits, those two submitted the 302 you're pointing at as evidence.

Not submitting the 302 in 5 days as required by FBI procedure can, and does, derail prosecutions. Having one submitted by someone that wasn't even present, I don't even know if that's legal but it certainly invalidates it.

So, let's see the 302 written by Pientka.

Have you read the DoJ filing to dismiss the charges?  Can you point to where it explains that they are seeking the dismissal because the 302 was manipulated and therefore is unreliable?  I'll wait.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #109 on: May 20, 2020, 09:23:24 AM »
Quote
Why was McCabe not charged you think? He clearly lied, free pass. Why?

The FBI didn't think there was justification.  Don't get distracted.

The FBI didn't think Flynn was lying:
Quote
The unredacted portion of the report, written by Republicans on the panel, details testimony from former FBI Director James Comey and his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe. The report says McCabe, in particular, testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying."

They did think McCabe was lying.

Why is someone they didn't think lied being persecuted and someone they think did lie being given a free pass?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #110 on: May 20, 2020, 09:24:22 AM »
Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Flynn FBI 302.  You couldn't google it?

I see you don't know what's going on again.

Quote
According to evidence DOJ disclosed this month, FBI officials subsequently edited the original Flynn interview report. After Strzok and fellow special agent Joe Pientka interviewed the Trump adviser, Pientka wrote the original interview report, known as a 302, then Strzok heavily edited it, so much so that he worried he was “trying not to completely re-write” the memo. Then FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who neither attended the interview nor is an agent, edited it again, according to the DOJ evidence. And then that version of the 302 was never given to the court.

Pientka wrote the 302 and he should have been the one to submit it within 5 days of the interview. That never happened.

Instead, Strzok did a massive rewrite. Then, he handed it off to Lisa Page, who wasn't even present during the interview, and she did some edits of her own. After 3 weeks of edits, those two submitted the 302 you're pointing at as evidence.

Not submitting the 302 in 5 days as required by FBI procedure can, and does, derail prosecutions. Having one submitted by someone that wasn't even present, I don't even know if that's legal but it certainly invalidates it.

So, let's see the 302 written by Pientka.

Have you read the DoJ filing to dismiss the charges?  Can you point to where it explains that they are seeking the dismissal because the 302 was manipulated and therefore is unreliable?  I'll wait.

Hold you breathe while you wait. Makes it so much more impactful when invoking a strawman.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #111 on: May 20, 2020, 09:29:58 AM »
Quote
Hold you breathe while you wait. Makes it so much more impactful when invoking a strawman.

Why is that a strawman?  It would totally undercut the case if that were credible, wouldn't it?

Who says Flynn lied to the FBI?

Can we see the 302 of his interview and verify this?

Flynn FBI 302.  You couldn't google it?

I see you don't know what's going on again.

Quote
According to evidence DOJ disclosed this month, FBI officials subsequently edited the original Flynn interview report. After Strzok and fellow special agent Joe Pientka interviewed the Trump adviser, Pientka wrote the original interview report, known as a 302, then Strzok heavily edited it, so much so that he worried he was “trying not to completely re-write” the memo. Then FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who neither attended the interview nor is an agent, edited it again, according to the DOJ evidence. And then that version of the 302 was never given to the court.

Pientka wrote the 302 and he should have been the one to submit it within 5 days of the interview. That never happened.

Instead, Strzok did a massive rewrite. Then, he handed it off to Lisa Page, who wasn't even present during the interview, and she did some edits of her own. After 3 weeks of edits, those two submitted the 302 you're pointing at as evidence.

Not submitting the 302 in 5 days as required by FBI procedure can, and does, derail prosecutions. Having one submitted by someone that wasn't even present, I don't even know if that's legal but it certainly invalidates it.

So, let's see the 302 written by Pientka.

Have you read the DoJ filing to dismiss the charges?  Can you point to where it explains that they are seeking the dismissal because the 302 was manipulated and therefore is unreliable?  I'll wait.

Hold you breathe while you wait. Makes it so much more impactful when invoking a strawman.

Grasping at straws endlessly.  It's like playing whack-a-mole.  Let's imagine for a second that McCabe initially thought Flynn was telling the truth (hypothetically).  What's the likelihood that he reviewed and received other material that made it clear that that first impression was false?

You're a big fan of finding out facts after the fact to reverse initial presentations.  What's wrong with that conjecture, especially since McCabe has repeatedly defended his belief that Flynn lied.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #112 on: May 20, 2020, 09:36:18 AM »
Have you looked up the reasons people plead guilty even though they’re innocent? You really should get informed on this topic.

Which of the reasons do you think applied? Poor black kids without access to good legal representation aren't in the same boat as the former NSC worth somewhere in the millions of dollars.

So you think that applies solely to poor black kids? In all the history of the US, only poor black kids plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit?  What an ignorant thing to say.

Not solely, but people falsely pleading guilty is primarily a problem of the poor. 

Put forth your case as to why Flynn would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. I'm not going to play the game of trying to guess which reasons you think applied here. If you care to see my response to the most likely ones review the thread. Put forth a coherent case as to why a senior admin official with a net worth in the millions would plead guilty while being absolutely innocent or quit harping on it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #113 on: May 20, 2020, 10:57:33 AM »
Quote
wmLambert: That is one of the new strategies out of the Democrat Party.

The Republic Party...

Quote
theDeamon: No, instead he was prosecuted for "lying to the FBI" while being interviewed about possible Logan Act Violations.

It takes a certain amount of sophistry to say it doesn't essentially boil down to a Logan Act Prosecution by another means.

Lying to the FBI is a §1001 violation.  That's what he was charged with and pled guilty to.  Give it up trying to make it about the Logan Act, since that was not used in this case, as it's never been used in any federal prosecution.  It's like an irresistible itch to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory every time a Republican or Trump crony commits a crime for not only why they didn't do it, but the FBI or the Democrats are the guilty ones themselves.

Ah, but this comes back around for the lie to be criminal it has to be material to the investigation, which only works in this case if you apply it to a Logan Act Violation, not election manipulation, as the lies involved phone calls after the election. We're also ignoring the whole intent thing, but that's besides the point.

He was prosecuted for lying to the FBI about material facts only relevant to a Logan Act Violation, which makes it a Logan Act Prosecution by another means.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #114 on: May 20, 2020, 11:05:32 AM »
I though the first time we did this, it was found that while the statute might require the facts be material to an investigation, the enforcement of the law (which is to say the actual law) was to prosecute people for lying regardless of the effect on the investigation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #115 on: May 20, 2020, 12:25:01 PM »
Put forth your case as to why Flynn would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit.

It seems to me it's not too difficult to imagine a situation where someone would plead guilty when he's innocent. The question is whether there's enough information on the table for us to know. Since my knowledge of this comes from crime shows, my surmise is that we will rarely be privy to the conversations that go on between the accused, the lawyers, and the prosecutor/investigator. They may or may not release what happened behind closed doors, and it may or may not be true; they can obviously choose to release whatever information they please, whether partial or an "official" version. The request to rescind the confession is a fact in evidence, but obviously not enough to inform us by itself.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #116 on: May 20, 2020, 01:29:15 PM »
Have you looked up the reasons people plead guilty even though they’re innocent? You really should get informed on this topic.

Which of the reasons do you think applied? Poor black kids without access to good legal representation aren't in the same boat as the former NSC worth somewhere in the millions of dollars.

So you think that applies solely to poor black kids? In all the history of the US, only poor black kids plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit?  What an ignorant thing to say.

Not solely, but people falsely pleading guilty is primarily a problem of the poor. 

Put forth your case as to why Flynn would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. I'm not going to play the game of trying to guess which reasons you think applied here. If you care to see my response to the most likely ones review the thread. Put forth a coherent case as to why a senior admin official with a net worth in the millions would plead guilty while being absolutely innocent or quit harping on it.

I have, as have others. Why do you (and others) pretend the case has not been made? I could post it all again but if you're just gonna pretend it doesn't exist then what's the point? You can see it all upthread, you just have to have the courage to do it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2020, 01:46:37 PM »
...Lying to the FBI is a §1001 violation.  That's what he was charged with and pled guilty to.  Give it up trying to make it about the Logan Act, since that was not used in this case, as it's never been used in any federal prosecution.  It's like an irresistible itch to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory every time a Republican or Trump crony commits a crime for not only why they didn't do it, but the FBI or the Democrats are the guilty ones themselves.

You are not a lawyer, and really don't understand the underlying issue. "The fruit of the poison tree" is all over this. A person can not be found guilty if coerced to lie. The DOJ asked for charges to be dropped when the papers came out that proved there was no crime to lie about. The defense and prosecution ordered all charges dropped.

It was Judge Emmet Sullivan who broke every precedent to stop Flynn walking free and being able to file suit against those who illegally framed him and caused so much pain to him, his family, and to the country. His earlier defense attorneys were incompetent, and it was only his new attorney, Sidney Powell, who got the charges revoked. Chief Justice Roberts said that judges are there to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat.  Sidney said Sulllivan was also in Left Field. Sullivan should be disbarred for trying to establish an amicus brief as a stand-in prosecutor for those who already dropped the charges, There is no amicus in criminal trials. Sullivan is another Left-wing appointee who confuses personal power with the law. Ruth Bader Ginsberg spoke on behalf of an unanimous Supreme Court ruling on that, just two weeks ago.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2020, 02:09:24 PM »
Are you a lawyer?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #119 on: May 20, 2020, 02:16:49 PM »
Are you a lawyer?

Okay Kassandra, cards on the table time.

If the judge ignores the request from DOJ and doesn't dismiss the case with prejudice and instead goes ahead with sentencing.

What do you genuinely think the odds are of this case surviving appeal? Because that's really what this boils down to.

In light of what Justice and and his Defense has made public in regards to this case. I solidly believe that his odds of successfully appealing the case, and having the entire thing thrown out are astronomically in his favor. We have a better chance of New York City being wiped out by a meteor strike in the next 24 hours than Flynn has of not having this case tossed out of the courts at some point in the process. The only question is how many Democrat activist judges it needs to go through first.

As it's basically a "no brainier" that this case is going to be expunged on appeal, why are you so insistent on the judge going through with the sentencing?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #120 on: May 20, 2020, 02:20:53 PM »
Quote
...
Put forth your case as to why Flynn would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. I'm not going to play the game of trying to guess which reasons you think applied here. If you care to see my response to the most likely ones review the thread. Put forth a coherent case as to why a senior admin official with a net worth in the millions would plead guilty while being absolutely innocent or quit harping on it.

I have, as have others. Why do you (and others) pretend the case has not been made? I could post it all again but if you're just gonna pretend it doesn't exist then what's the point? You can see it all upthread, you just have to have the courage to do it.

You haven't. You made a single claim that his previous lawyers had a conflict of interest. Otherwise you haven't once directly addressed why a senior administration official worth millions would falsely plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. Unless you asking people to google why it can happen in the abstract is a coherent argument in your book. What's the case? His previous lawyers were incompetent? He's an idiot? He wanted to be a felon? He was out of money (kind of disproven by the year long appeal)? He wanted his shady company taking millions from foreign governments for unregistered lobbying not to be investigated? Put forward a coherent case as why Flynn pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #121 on: May 20, 2020, 03:01:29 PM »
You haven't. You made a single claim that his previous lawyers had a conflict of interest. Otherwise you haven't once directly addressed why a senior administration official worth millions would falsely plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. Unless you asking people to google why it can happen in the abstract is a coherent argument in your book. What's the case? His previous lawyers were incompetent? He's an idiot? He wanted to be a felon? He was out of money (kind of disproven by the year long appeal)? He wanted his shady company taking millions from foreign governments for unregistered lobbying not to be investigated? Put forward a coherent case as why Flynn pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit.

"What's the case? His previous lawyers were incompetent? He's an idiot?"
1) He had to file for bankruptcy protection. He was "out of money" at least to the standard he was accustomed to at least.
2) His previous lawyers had a conflict of interest as THEY were the ones that should have filed to report on his dealings with Turkey, but didn't.
3) His son was being threatened by the Mueller Team, as per emails at the time from his lawyers who had that conflict of interest.
4) To some extent yes, but when people are under a lot of stress, they tend to do stupid things. And most of what he pled to is technically correct, although people being charged in that manner is highly unusual in general, unless it was due to agreement to plea to a "lesser charge" but in this case, there doesn't seem to be a larger one. (and his conflicted lawyers advised him to accept the plea)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #122 on: May 20, 2020, 04:19:09 PM »
Quote
To some extent yes, but when people are under a lot of stress, they tend to do stupid things. And most of what he pled to is technically correct

Finally!  Can we move on, now?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #123 on: May 20, 2020, 04:32:08 PM »
Quote
To some extent yes, but when people are under a lot of stress, they tend to do stupid things. And most of what he pled to is technically correct

Finally!  Can we move on, now?

...and that while technically correct. Prosecution for such offenses is highly unusual and the only rational explanation for the charges being made in this case is that they politically motivated rather than legally so.

Which isn't to mention the poisoned tree in the middle of all of this.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #124 on: May 21, 2020, 08:06:28 AM »
Quote
To some extent yes, but when people are under a lot of stress, they tend to do stupid things. And most of what he pled to is technically correct

Finally!  Can we move on, now?

...and that while technically correct. Prosecution for such offenses is highly unusual and the only rational explanation for the charges being made in this case is that they politically motivated rather than legally so.

Which isn't to mention the poisoned tree in the middle of all of this.

Besides being "technically correct" and the charges being "legally so", if that's not good enough you don't consider concern about national security to be another possible explanation?  How much more do you need?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #125 on: May 21, 2020, 12:23:03 PM »
...and that while technically correct. Prosecution for such offenses is highly unusual and the only rational explanation for the charges being made in this case is that they politically motivated rather than legally so.

Which isn't to mention the poisoned tree in the middle of all of this.

Besides being "technically correct" and the charges being "legally so", if that's not good enough you don't consider concern about national security to be another possible explanation?  How much more do you need?

Oh, so NOW you're concerned about national security when it comes to this. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton and mishandling classified information, which is an obvious national security interest--or the information wouldn't have been classified. That's perfectly okay.

Meanwhile, the "national security case" to made for the activities that Flynn undertook aren't anywhere as clean cut, given those kinds of violations are also pretty freaking routine, as has already been pointed out in this discussion.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #126 on: May 21, 2020, 12:41:44 PM »
Oh, so NOW you're concerned about national security when it comes to this. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton and mishandling classified information, which is an obvious national security interest--or the information wouldn't have been classified.
Are you implying that investigating Clinton's use of a personal email server was not justified?  Or are you suggesting that, just as the investigation into Clinton's server use was justified, so was the investigation of Flynn et al's actions concerning election interference?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #127 on: May 21, 2020, 12:51:19 PM »
Quote
Oh, so NOW you're concerned about national security when it comes to this.

??? What other reason for the investigation was there?  That was the WHOLE POINT of investigating him!?!?!

Quote
But when it comes to Hillary Clinton and mishandling classified information, which is an obvious national security interest--or the information wouldn't have been classified. That's perfectly okay.

Now what are you talking about?!?!?!?!  There were 7 different investigations in Congress and the FBI. NONE of them recommended a criminal case be brought.  Even Trump never goes further than "Lock the bitch up". 

I truly cannot fathom how your mind is working on these things.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #128 on: May 21, 2020, 12:59:50 PM »
Oh, so NOW you're concerned about national security when it comes to this. But when it comes to Hillary Clinton and mishandling classified information, which is an obvious national security interest--or the information wouldn't have been classified.
Are you implying that investigating Clinton's use of a personal email server was not justified?  Or are you suggesting that, just as the investigation into Clinton's server use was justified, so was the investigation of Flynn et al's actions concerning election interference?

The Clinton Server investigation was justified both from circumventing the FOIA, improper handling of classified information, and a few other angles.

But it's also valid that much of the interest in that investigation was political in nature. Except if we circle back to "handling of classified information" we also have the recent example of a sailor being prosecuted for posting a picture of his workspace, which happened to be on a Nuclear Submarine. Nothing "sensitive" was shown in the photo, but as it was taken on a Navy Ship, and in particular a submarine, that photo is classified by default. Any photo taken on any military facility is classified as "sensitive" at a minimum and subject to release only upon explicit permission being granted for it to be released. In fact, generally speaking, you're supposed to have permission in order to take the photo in the first place.

It hasn't stopped millions of present and former service members from amassing photo collections that legally speaking, shouldn't exist. But for that sailor, he took the photo, posted it to social media, and the right person noticed it, and it was off to the races. At least until Trump intervened and stopped it. This example is relevant because it highlights how mistreatment of "sensitive information" is handled by the system when "the rank and file" are the ones found in violation of it. Now compare that to what was done with Hillary, where we're not talking about an innocuous photograph, we're talking about sensitive, classified documents having been verified as having been handling by Anthony Wiener(as they were found on his computer) after his security clearance had been suspended as he was no longer in Government Service. And the reason he was handling them was because he was printing out Hillary Clinton's Emails for her.

That is one of the most blatant and clear cut violations of proper handling of classified material I've ever been aware of that didn't result in some kind of judicial remediation happening.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #129 on: May 21, 2020, 01:01:48 PM »
Quote
Oh, so NOW you're concerned about national security when it comes to this.

??? What other reason for the investigation was there?  That was the WHOLE POINT of investigating him!?!?!

Quote
But when it comes to Hillary Clinton and mishandling classified information, which is an obvious national security interest--or the information wouldn't have been classified. That's perfectly okay.

Now what are you talking about?!?!?!?!  There were 7 different investigations in Congress and the FBI. NONE of them recommended a criminal case be brought.  Even Trump never goes further than "Lock the bitch up". 

I truly cannot fathom how your mind is working on these things.

If Flynn needs to go to jail for what he did. Hillary needs to go to prison for what she did. Her case is much more clear cut.

If you think that the Obama Justice Department decision to leave it alone is valid with regards to Hillary, you have no grounds to complain about what Justice just advised in regards to Flynn.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #130 on: May 21, 2020, 01:16:04 PM »
So, the concern about national security is valid, and you feel the investigation of Flynn et al was also justified, then?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #131 on: May 21, 2020, 01:25:39 PM »
classified documents having been verified as having been handling by Anthony Wiener(as they were found on his computer) after his security clearance had been suspended as he was no longer in Government Service. And the reason he was handling them was because he was printing out Hillary Clinton's Emails for her.

Not sure if I want to stir up this pot again, but the issue you mention here isn't even the biggest problem in that issue. Having improper people handling your emails is obviously against the law in this context, and if was a lesser employee they would have been prosecuted for it, but the real stinker was the attempt to 'shred the documents' when they were subpoenad, instanced by the head of her 'security team' going on Reddit to ask how to dispose of computer files properly. That's not just technically illegal, it's plain criminal conspiracy stuff. Putting aside whether this was proved or whether anyone cared to prosecute it (which is not my purpose here to discuss), the flavor of that offense was distinctly different from what we're discussing here. Hillary's case looked like a TV-version of a criminal disposing of the evidence; Flynn's case has never even been presented as anything other than him lying to the FBI, and maybe tax fraud. Not trying to excuse those things if true, but that's worlds apart from destroying your machines to avoid Congress getting its hands on them.

I tend to agree with TheDeamon that it would be at minimum understandable to want Flynn prosecuted, so long as this principle was consistent and applied to both teams equally. I am personally so vehemently against allowing government corruption that actually you will find me first to support any initiative that universally condemns these things. But I will be just as quick to be against initiatives that are only about going after the other team, in either direction.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #132 on: May 21, 2020, 01:32:46 PM »
So, the concern about national security is valid, and you feel the investigation of Flynn et al was also justified, then?

The "lying to the FBI" charge is invalid, the reason for the interview was invalid. Poisoned tree, etc.

The charge about failure to report the Turkey lobbying money is valid, but procedural/process in nature. And also circles back to that whole "conflict of interest" thing regarding his legal team at the time. As they were the ones who SHOULD have advised him to make that filing, and would have likely been the ones to submit the paperwork. His lawyers failed at their job, and he was hung out to dry for it because he didn't think to seek a second legal opinion on the matter.

But as Serati and others have pointed out, prosecution for violating THAT is also exceedingly rare, and frequently violated(and probably a large part of why Flynn's lawyers failed to advise him to report it.

Also the Turkey lobbying money is a distraction anyway because Turkey is a NATO Ally and I thought Russia was supposed to be problem here, not Turkey?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #133 on: May 21, 2020, 01:38:41 PM »
That's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to, just so you know.

And yes, I get it, national security is only important if one can claim that Clinton compromised it, but it's not important if a Republican compromised it.  It's convenient, I'll give you that.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #134 on: May 21, 2020, 01:39:11 PM »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #135 on: May 21, 2020, 01:44:36 PM »
Turkey

Quote
NATO "Ally"

Not going to disagree with that. Erdogan is bad news.

But I don't think anyone was accusing Turkey of election interference?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #136 on: May 21, 2020, 01:59:59 PM »
That's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to, just so you know.


Yeah? What does it mean then?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #137 on: May 21, 2020, 02:25:45 PM »
Turkey

Quote
NATO "Ally"

Not going to disagree with that. Erdogan is bad news.

But I don't think anyone was accusing Turkey of election interference?
If I were to rob a bank, would it not matter, since it's not election interference?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #138 on: May 21, 2020, 04:31:32 PM »
Quote
If Flynn needs to go to jail for what he did. Hillary needs to go to prison for what she did. Her case is much more clear cut.

It's clear (and always has been) that nobody on the right can yield even when they've admitted they were wrong.  Some posters here won't even acknowledge that the sun rises "on the left" if they are facing south when it comes up and will wait until noon before looking in its direction.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #139 on: May 22, 2020, 07:45:05 AM »
Just some interesting reading about the plea bargain process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-plea-bargain-system-can-make-the-innocent-admit-guilt-enter-michael-flynn/2020/05/19/27eb0fc6-99e1-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

I think we talked about this before, the idea that under certain definitions of torture the plea bargain process might actually fit.

I'm not saying I'm against the plea bargain process necessarily but it all comes down to the details. If it's used to get a guilty person to confess and save the tax payers some money then it has a place but separating that out from coercing the innocent to confess to crimes they didn't commit is the rub.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #140 on: May 22, 2020, 07:58:40 AM »
Just some interesting reading about the plea bargain process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-plea-bargain-system-can-make-the-innocent-admit-guilt-enter-michael-flynn/2020/05/19/27eb0fc6-99e1-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

I think we talked about this before, the idea that under certain definitions of torture the plea bargain process might actually fit.

I'm not saying I'm against the plea bargain process necessarily but it all comes down to the details. If it's used to get a guilty person to confess and save the tax payers some money then it has a place but separating that out from coercing the innocent to confess to crimes they didn't commit is the rub.

Torture? :D

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #141 on: May 22, 2020, 08:54:47 AM »
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cat.aspx

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Threatening someone like Brian Banks with a 41 years to life prison sentence if he doesn't take a plea deal for rape and take five years instead seems like it would qualify as inflicting severe mental suffering.

Flynn lost his house and whether he's innocent or guilty he's not getting that back. Causing someone to lose their house to pay their lawyers seems like inflicting severe emotional pain. And threatening their children too.

Going back to Brian Banks, you have to wonder what if...? So what if he didn't take the plea deal? His accuser cries in court and points the finger at him and he gets a life sentence. He never gets out to record her private phone conversation admitting her crime. He never gets exonerated. He's still in prison right now and everyone thinks he is a rapist. If he wasn't why would he have admitted to being one?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #142 on: May 22, 2020, 09:06:42 AM »
Flynn’s “filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the appellate court asking that the court force Sullivan (1) to grant the motion to dismiss, (2) to reverse the invitation to Judge Gleeson, and (3) to exit the case post haste. “

The appeal court agreed and ordered Sullivan to explain himself, giving him 10 days to do it. The appellate court has also warned Sullivan that his thoughts have to pass muster under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) and United States v. Fokker Services.

What this amounts to is Sullivan getting slapped down.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #143 on: May 22, 2020, 10:47:50 AM »
Quote
Flynn lost his house and whether he's innocent or guilty he's not getting that back. Causing someone to lose their house to pay their lawyers seems like inflicting severe emotional pain. And threatening their children too.

So, you are saying Flynn was tortured, right?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #144 on: May 22, 2020, 10:50:59 AM »
Quote
Flynn lost his house and whether he's innocent or guilty he's not getting that back. Causing someone to lose their house to pay their lawyers seems like inflicting severe emotional pain. And threatening their children too.

So, you are saying Flynn was tortured, right?

No one forced Flynn to hire really expensive, and if this charge is an baseless as you all claim, seemingly incompetent lawyers.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #145 on: May 22, 2020, 11:54:25 AM »

Kasandra


"So, you are saying Flynn was tortured, right?"

Was he subjected to severe emotional pain?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #146 on: May 22, 2020, 11:54:39 AM »
...No one forced Flynn to hire really expensive, and if this charge is an baseless as you all claim, seemingly incompetent lawyers.

Hmmm. When you are attacked by the entire DOJ and the media, very few attorneys are competent. Finding anyone to take such a case gets very expensive. Flynn is a good leader and a good man, but he does not have a law degree, and the attorneys who talked to him gave him really bad representation. There is quite a lot of chatter that they were also compromised. Sidney Powell was a Godsend. She immediately put the case into a proper perspective, and with the help of FOIA got the documentation that blew-up the Comey frame-up. (The FBI did not provide the legally mandated info in a timely fashion - it had to be pried out of their rigidly locked fingers.) Sullivan vastly over-stepped his authority, but so did all the other Obama stooges in this. He is just one more of the Swamp denizens who need to be removed.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #147 on: May 22, 2020, 12:49:21 PM »
Flynn’s “filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the appellate court asking that the court force Sullivan (1) to grant the motion to dismiss, (2) to reverse the invitation to Judge Gleeson, and (3) to exit the case post haste. “

The appeal court agreed and ordered Sullivan to explain himself, giving him 10 days to do it. The appellate court has also warned Sullivan that his thoughts have to pass muster under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) and United States v. Fokker Services.

What this amounts to is Sullivan getting slapped down.

Well that was a faster turn-around than I expected with this:

Are you a lawyer?

Okay Kassandra, cards on the table time.

If the judge ignores the request from DOJ and doesn't dismiss the case with prejudice and instead goes ahead with sentencing.

What do you genuinely think the odds are of this case surviving appeal? Because that's really what this boils down to.

In light of what Justice and and his Defense has made public in regards to this case. I solidly believe that his odds of successfully appealing the case, and having the entire thing thrown out are astronomically in his favor. We have a better chance of New York City being wiped out by a meteor strike in the next 24 hours than Flynn has of not having this case tossed out of the courts at some point in the process. The only question is how many Democrat activist judges it needs to go through first.

As it's basically a "no brainier" that this case is going to be expunged on appeal, why are you so insistent on the judge going through with the sentencing?

As it seems an appeals court is getting prepared to dismiss the case before the current judge presiding over it issues a final ruling.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 12:52:33 PM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #148 on: May 22, 2020, 12:52:27 PM »
Do you know why I asked wmLambert if he is a lawyer?  Go back upstream and you'll see why.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Unmasking
« Reply #149 on: May 22, 2020, 12:53:11 PM »
Kasandra

"So, you are saying Flynn was tortured, right?"

Was he subjected to severe emotional pain?

I don't know, do you?