The Mueller Report thread

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2020, 07:32 PM)Benton Wrote: In dispute by who? Either way, it doesn't matter with what happened. Barr
is disputing Flynn did anything illegal.

And no, that's not relevant to the judge. Prosecution (Barr) is saying no crime was committed.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................................The accused. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2020, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm no lawyer.  I try to read and follow the people who understand the law around such things.  But the DOJ saying (now) that "oops...never mind" is a one shot deal that won;'t work for me or bfine or Benton if the FBI decides to asks a question they already know the answer too and we lie without a lawyer present.  Especially if it is about a law we broke.

That's the corruption. 

There is not "the corruption" like it's at one place in the process. Rather there are successive waves of corruption here, permeating multiple departments and offices and becoming more organized and efficient.

It starts with Flynn's lying to the Trump campaign (perhaps) about taking foreign money, and then colluding with the Russians (likely with Trump's go ahead) to undermine the sanctions Obama set on them for election interference.

Then come his denials to the FBI

and Trump's efforts to get Comey to "go easy" on Flynn, "a good guy,"

followed by Comey's firing (for continuing to investigate the president).

The FBI has Flynn's cooperation and a plea deal, but then a new set of defense Lawyers from Trump's administration shows up and, given the protection of the president and DOJ, an entirely new and unprecedented possibility opens up--dismissal of all charges to which the defendant has admitted guilt, a guilt already established by evidence.

Tactics already developed to neutralize Steele Dossier FISA warrants and the Impeachment case are quickly applied--Deep-state FBI "malfeasance" discovered by the new actors in the DOJ ambiguates (allegedly) the whole process. Bold. They beat impeachment. They can do this too.

And Flynn joins the growing legion of unrepentant law-breakers and war criminals delivered from the law. Roger is next, or in line, at least.

The DOJ under Barr is exploiting a kind of power impossible when, under previous administrations, it was held by those who ran it to be an autonomous unit of the Exec, and a president could not count on control of the Senate to protect him from any discovery of high crimes. Barr and his minions are learning from their successes, deploying ever more effectively the deep-state narrative to undo legal process, defending friends and undermining "enemies" of the president, including whistle blowers.

For Trump's base, each failed or overturned conviction confirms and extends the deep state coup narrative, and solidifies the support needed for continued work around and above the law.

Can the usual "whatabouts" equivocate or dismiss what is happening here?  Bobby and Hoover? Fast and furious?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2020, 07:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The tactics, the alleged misconduct, occurred before he admitted he lied. He lied to the FBI, then he admitted to lying in the courtroom. His guilty plea was an admission of guilt and the tactics used by the FBI didn't get him to admit to lying to them.

The tactics always occur before some admits something under duress. What the hell kind of sense would it make to coerce them after you got them to admit guilt?

It's sorta like saying: This is a picture of me when I was younger.

[GMDino]

Flynn admitted he lied, he tweeted that he lied, the POTUS tweeted that he fired Flynn because he lied.

Now everyone wants to say he wouldn't have lied if they wouldn't have asked him any questions.

Remember that for a defense of absolutely everyone in the future.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2020, 08:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The tactics always occur before some admits something under duress. What the hell kind of sense would it make to coerce them after you got them to admit guilt?

It's sorta like saying: This is a picture of me when I was younger.

I'm still not understanding his duress when he plead guilty to perjury in the courtroom.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still not understanding his duress when he plead guilty to perjury in the courtroom.

I assume you still listen to APL and LRC...it was fun to listen to Ken White explain this.  

[Benton]

(05-11-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still not understanding his duress when he plead guilty to perjury in the courtroom.

He was under duress because he lied about lying about lying about the thing he lied about when he lied and said he didn't know anyone from Russia.



Seriously, though, the duress argument is insane. If thats the standard being set (you might do more time or we might investigate your co-conspirators) , every plea deal is made under duress.

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 09:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: I assume you still listen to APL and LRC...it was fun to listen to Ken White explain this.  

Indeed. Ken's take it usually a very good one.

(05-11-2020, 10:02 AM)Benton Wrote: He was under duress because he lied about lying about lying about the thing he lied about when he lied and said he didn't know anyone from Russia.



Seriously, though, the duress argument is insane. If thats the standard being set (you might do more time or we might investigate your co-conspirators) , every plea deal is made under duress.

That's my thing. It's an asinine argument. In addition, he has confirmed he lied and knew it was illegal more than once during this whole process. Even if the FBI was expecting him to lie, which they absolutely were, that's not entrapment, it's not illegal for them to do so, and it is a very common tactic.

I'm not a fan of the tactic, but there is nothing legally wrong with it. My biggest issue in all of this is that all of a sudden we have people complaining about something that happens ALL THE TIME now that it is some partisan loyalist for the person they like and have ignored them doing this for decades to other criminals they don't care about. I have an issue with political influence corrupting the criminal justice system in this way. It's some banana republic level bullshit.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2020, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Me too. I've asked for your view a few times in this thread and now that you've provided it; it's absolute gold.

The only "pure gold" is that you can't tell the difference between these two questions.

Does Flynn want to withdraw his plea?

Does Flynn deny lying to the FBI?

As far as I can tell he has never denied lying to the FBI.  He admitted the truth about the call with Kislyakto the adminstration and that is why he was forced to resign.  He swore under oath that he lied.  Even now he refuses to deny he lied.  All he will say now is that he does not remember.

So what threats did the Trump administration use to force him to resign?  I know Trump is incompetent, but I am pretty sure that when he heard what Flybb was clkaimed to have said he checked with the Russians to find out the truth.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still not understanding his duress when he plead guilty to perjury in the courtroom.

Where thre plea took place does not really matter.

Coercion never takes place in the courtroom for everyone to see.

But in this case there are multiple other sources to confirm that he lied and he knew that he lied.  Even now Flynn refuses to deny that he lied.  All he will say now is that he does not remember what he said.  

And the Trump supporters refuse to address all the other proof that he lied.  They are not even aware that he STILL refuses to deny that he lied.  All they know is that Foxnews told them he wanted to withdraw his plea so they assume he has denied telling the lies.

[BmorePat87]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2000-doj-officials-call-ag-barr-resign-flynn/story?id=70615677

Nearly 2000 former DOJ officials signed onto a letter calling on Barr to resign, saying that his "repeated actions to use the Department as a tool to further President Trump’s personal and political interests have undermined any claim to the deference that courts usually apply to the Department’s decisions about whether or not to prosecute a case".

Mary McCord, who was the acting assistant AG for National Security, was cited more than 25 times in the DOJ's argument for dismissing the charges against Flynn. McCord wrote a NYT oped saying that the DOJ twisted her words. "The report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified." She was critical of some of the actions, specifically the FBI not following standard protocol by alerting DOJ officials of their intent to interview WH staff, but she said "the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose."

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still not understanding his duress when he plead guilty to perjury in the courtroom.

Benton Wrote:He was under duress because he lied about lying about lying about the thing he lied about when he lied and said he didn't know anyone from Russia.


Mellow

Seriously, though, the duress argument is insane. If thats the standard being set (you might do more time or we might investigate your co-conspirators) , every plea deal is made under duress.

I'm just spitballing here, but....could it have occurred before being in the courtroom and therefore influence his statements in the court room? 

I'm sure you consider this a wild hypotheses that probably never actually really ever happens, but is it anywhere in the realm of possibility?  

Or did they actually have to threaten his son in the courtroom to influence his answers there?

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only "pure gold" is that you can't tell the difference between these two questions.

Does Flynn want to withdraw his plea?

Does Flynn deny lying to the FBI?

As far as I can tell he has never denied lying to the FBI.  He admitted the truth about the call with Kislyakto the adminstration and that is why he was forced to resign.  He swore under oath that he lied.  Even now he refuses to deny he lied.  All he will say now is that he does not remember.

So what threats did the Trump administration use to force him to resign?  I know Trump is incompetent, but I am pretty sure that when he heard what Flybb was clkaimed to have said he checked with the Russians to find out the truth.

So let me see if I understand the stance of the ever evolving Fred:

He never asserts he didn't lie, but 

The tactics during the investigation are found to be illegal

Is he guilty of lying to the FBI? 

Does Fred feel all should be punished for something they did during an illegal investigation?

Much like Breech, you and I agree on nothing, but just as respect his medical opinions, I respect your legal opinions. I've always thought of you more as a defender, but here you appear to be a prosecutor. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 01:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just spitballing here, but....could it have occurred before being in the courtroom and therefore influence his statements in the court room? 

I'm sure you consider this a wild hypotheses that probably never actually really ever happens, but is it anywhere in the realm of possibility?  

Or did they actually have to threaten his son in the courtroom to influence his answers there?

My statement does not discount the idea the duress could have been carried with him from outside the courtroom. I'm just trying to understand what qualifies as duress for him while entering his plea. I mean, if it was that they could possibly go after his son then that would mean there are countless plea deals that would have to be thrown out.

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 01:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So let me see if I understand the stance of the ever evolving Fred:

He never asserts he didn't lie, but 

The tactics during the investigation are found to be illegal

Is he guilty of lying to the FBI? 

Does Fred feel all should be punished for something they did during an illegal investigation?

Much like Breech, you and I agree on nothing, but just as respect his medical opinions, I respect your legal opinions. I've always thought of you more as a defender, but here you appear to be a prosecutor. 

In what way was the investigation and/or the tactics illegal?

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 01:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way was the investigation and/or the tactics illegal?

The illegal way.

It was a hypothetical to understand a stance. As most people's response to this has been: Well he admitted it..

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 01:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My statement does not discount the idea the duress could have been carried with him from outside the courtroom. I'm just trying to understand what qualifies as duress for him while entering his plea. I mean, if it was that they could possibly go after his son then that would mean there are countless plea deals that would have to be thrown out.

Sure it did, go back and re-read it. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The illegal way.

It was a hypothetical to understand a stance. As most people's response to this has been: Well he admitted it..

Well, there has also been a lot of "there is no evidence of anything illegal." But good to know you have no answer for that.

(05-11-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it did, go back and re-read it. 

I did, still think the same way. Your inference is noted, as is your lack of a response to the main point of that post.

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, there has also been a lot of "there is no evidence of anything illegal." But good to know you have no answer for that.


I did, still think the same way. Your inference is noted, as is your lack of a response to the main point of that post.

If you're going to get all pissy then let me give you a "for instance"

For instance: If a member of the FBi told him: We're just gonna talk as friends, nothing official, no notes or recordings will be made, and you don't even need a lawyer present"

Perhaps something along those lines.

As to you initial comment re-read it again, You "did not understand". 

[GMDino]

In another thread we are asked if we are "still buying the narrative" of a man out for a jog getting gunned down because there is a video of someone who *might* be the victim spending three minutes looking at a home being built and in this thread we are to assume there was no reason to believe a man who admitted he lied because he lied about something people knew he would lie about should be punished for lying.

"logic"