The Mueller Report thread

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 02:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you're going to get all pissy then let me give you a "for instance"

I didn't realize that pointing out your non-response response was getting "pissy."

(05-11-2020, 02:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

So, something there is no evidence of. Ok.

(05-11-2020, 02:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to you initial comment re-read it again, You "did not understand". 

I did not, and continue to not, understand the duress he was supposedly under when entering his plea. There hasn't been a sufficient answer to this one, either.

So, no good answers to my questions, then.

[fredtoast]

(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. 

1.  Yes, Flynn was clearly guilty of lying to the FBI.  There is lots of evidence to support the claim that he was lying other than the plea he wants to retract.

2.  The tactics were never found to be illegal, (all I have seen are some claims by Flynn and his lawyer) but if they are then the remedy is to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea AND GO TO TRIAL.  The dismissal is just a political move by Barr that is not supported by the law.  

3.  And if his son was guilty then he should be prosecuted also.

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't realize that pointing out your non-response response was getting "pissy."


So, something there is no evidence of. Ok.


I did not, and continue to not, understand the duress he was supposedly under when entering his plea. There hasn't been a sufficient answer to this one, either.

So, no good answers to my questions, then.

it's not that you pointed it out that made it pissy, it was how you pointed it out that made you pissy. I'd ask you to go back and re-read it, but that ship has sailed.

I've answered every question you've asked:

Why could he be under duress? It is said the FBI threatened his son

Well they didn't do this during the trial so I DON"T UNDERSTAND HOW HE COULD BE UNDER DURESS? They could have made the threats before the trial thereby; his answers were under duress

Well can you provide examples of what the FBI did that could be illegal? Sure for instance off the record, no lawyer required


All this BS; yet you still haven't answered the question posed.

IF the FBI practiced illegal tactics while conducting their interview. Is he quilty of lying to the FBI

A yes or no will suffice. The simplest yet, hardest to get answer in this forum

I too hate it when they don't answer; although it appears only 

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Yes, Flynn was clearly guilty of lying to the FBI.  There is lots of evidence to support the claim that he was lying other than the plea he wants to retract.

2.  The tactics were never found to be illegal, (all I have seen are some claims by Flynn and his lawyer) but if they are then the remedy is to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea AND GO TO TRIAL.  The dismissal is just a political move by Barr that is not supported by the law.  

3.  And if his son was guilty then he should be prosecuted also.

So that's a Yes. To if the tactics by the FBI are found to be illegal then he's still guilty of lying to the FBI.

That's really all I need was either 2 letters NO or 3 letters YES. 

We're not trying the case here I simply asked a question that could become a possibility

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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"

I've got a great idea:

Let's discuss that case in that thread and discuss this one in this thread. 

[GMDino]

(05-11-2020, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've got a great idea:

Let's discuss that case in that thread and discuss this one in this thread. 

Better idea: Let's be consistent.  In one case you want to search high and low (despite a lack of evidence) for a reason  a man who admitted his guilt should not be punished and in another you want to search high and low (despite a lack of evidence) for a reason a man who was killed *might* have been guilty of "something".

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've answered every question you've asked:

Why could he be under duress? It is said the FBI threatened his son

Well they didn't do this during the trial so I DON"T UNDERSTAND HOW HE COULD BE UNDER DURESS? They could have made the threats before the trial thereby; his answers were under duress

It has already been addressed that this is something done on a regular basis and trying to claim this would make his plea being under duress would call into question countless other pleas. This is why I don't understand how he was under duress, because what you are claiming made him so is asinine.

(05-11-2020, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well can you provide examples of what the FBI did that could be illegal? Sure for instance off the record, no lawyer required

Where is the evidence this occurred? I thought this was your hypothetical and not actually something that was done. If you're claiming it was done then I would like to know where that came from.

(05-11-2020, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All this BS; yet you still haven't answered the question posed.

IF the FBI practiced illegal tactics while conducting their interview. Is he quilty of lying to the FBI

A yes or no will suffice. The simplest yet, hardest to get answer in this forum

I too hate it when they don't answer; although it appears only 

You never asked the question of me that I saw, but my answer is yes.

If the FBI violated his civil rights then it would taint the case, but if he lied he would still be guilty of a criminal offense.

[hollodero]

(05-11-2020, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All this BS; yet you still haven't answered the question posed.

IF the FBI practiced illegal tactics while conducting their interview. Is he quilty of lying to the FBI

A yes or no will suffice. The simplest yet, hardest to get answer in this forum

I too hate it when they don't answer; although it appears only 

I don't know for certain that the FBI didn't pull a gun on Flynn to force him to lie. Or threatened his son. Which, of course, would be illegal on the FBI's part. Also, it is a highly speculative and unproven scenario.

And perpetuated by an AG that loves to intervene on Trump's behalf and do his bidding. I don't know if you can still blindly trust that person. Based on recent events I see no reason to do so myself.

It just does not really make much sense. In addition, I suppose the FBI could also have forced poor Flynn to not register as a foreign agent to further incriminate himself. But I find that equally unlikely and nonsensical. Admittedly, I have no initial intention or wish to whitewash Trump&friends and denigrate the FBI. How easily you are willing to do so based on zero facts is imho astonishing. Never would you ever find that much benefit of the doubt for the accused and that much scorn for law enforcement would that whole story concern Lynch and Hillary.

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 03:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has already been addressed that this is something done on a regular basis and trying to claim this would make his plea being under duress would call into question countless other pleas. This is why I don't understand how he was under duress, because what you are claiming made him so is asinine.


Where is the evidence this occurred? I thought this was your hypothetical and not actually something that was done. If you're claiming it was done then I would like to know where that came from.


You never asked the question of me that I saw, but my answer is yes.

If the FBI violated his civil rights then it would taint the case, but if he lied he would still be guilty of a criminal offense.

It's been widely reported that McCabe to Flynn "no need to involve WH counsel, doing so would escalate the case"

They even discussed how to answer if he asks "Do I need an attorney" Also how to answer if Flynn asks is this an investigation. I wonder why ask such a question before an interrogation? 

They further discuss that they don't need to tell him upfront that lying to them is a crime. Most likely because then he would have asked for a lawyer. but they were ready for that to. They talked about ways the could "casually slip it in"

There's also a handwritten note describing ways they can "get him".

Is any of that evidence?

[hollodero]

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's been widely reported that McCabe to Flynn "no need to involve WH counsel, doing so would escalate the case"

They even discussed how to answer if he asks "Do I need an attorney" Also how to answer if Flynn asks is this an investigation. I wonder why ask such a question before an interrogation? 

They further discuss that they don't need to tell him upfront that lying to them is a crime. Most likely because then he would have asked for a lawyer. but they were ready for that to. They talked about ways the could "casually slip it in"

There's also a handwritten note describing ways they can "get him".

Is any of that evidence?

No. 
That seems quite circumstantial at best, speculative in its nature and not quite exciting.

If there were actual evidence, Barr should and probably would have to suspend and possibly indict all officers in question. Said persons that coerced and threatened Flynn to incriminate himself would have acted in gross neglicence of the law and their oath and need to face consequences immediately.

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's been widely reported that McCabe to Flynn "no need to involve WH counsel, doing so would escalate the case"

He told him that the quickest way to get it over with would be to not involve anyone else and that doing so would mean DoJ involvement. Not a lie, and not telling him to not bring a lawyer. This is sneaky, but not illegal.

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They even discussed how to answer if he asks "Do I need an attorney" Also how to answer if Flynn asks is this an investigation. I wonder why ask such a question before an interrogation? 

Because law enforcement always prefers people not bring their lawyer. Again, sneaky, but not illegal.

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They further discuss that they don't need to tell him upfront that lying to them is a crime. Most likely because then he would have asked for a lawyer. but they were ready for that to. They talked about ways the could "casually slip it in"

Once again, sneaky, but not illegal.

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's also a handwritten note describing ways they can "get him".

I legitimately have not seen anything about this.

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is any of that evidence?

Evidence of the FBI operating legally and under business as usual? Yes.

[GMDino]

I'm just enjoying the resident medical/military/political expert now demonstrating his vast knowledge of the FBI and law.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2020, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He told him that the quickest way to get it over with would be to not involve anyone else and that doing so would mean DoJ involvement. Not a lie, and not telling him to not bring a lawyer. This is sneaky, but not illegal.


Because law enforcement always prefers people not bring their lawyer. Again, sneaky, but not illegal.


Once again, sneaky, but not illegal.


I legitimately have not seen anything about this.


Evidence of the FBI operating legally and under business as usual? Yes.

Tactics that are used all the time are suddenly "illegal" because a rich white guy got caught lying who happens to be friends with the POTUS.

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He told him that the quickest way to get it over with would be to not involve anyone else and that doing so would mean DoJ involvement. Not a lie, and not telling him to not bring a lawyer. This is sneaky, but not illegal.


Because law enforcement always prefers people not bring their lawyer. Again, sneaky, but not illegal.


Once again, sneaky, but not illegal.


I legitimately have not seen anything about this.


Evidence of the FBI operating legally and under business as usual? Yes.

So not informing someone of their Right to Counsel is just "sneaky"?

Got it. I simply asked a hypothetical that could become a possibility and am now being asked to provide empirical proof.

But none of this matters to you and others on this board. You don't like Trump, you don't like Flynn, you don't like Barr so any possible corruption/ wrong doing by the FBI that the DOJ determined was severe enough to have the case dismissed doesn't matter and can be swept away as simply as : "He admitted it"

[*bfine32*]

(05-11-2020, 03:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Tactics that are used all the time are suddenly "illegal" because a rich white guy got caught lying who happens to be friends with the POTUS.

Oh, I fully agree many are seeing this differently than they may under circumstances other than it involving a "rich white guy who happens to be friends with the POTUS."

[hollodero]

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So not informing someone of their Right to Counsel is just "sneaky"?

Got it. I simply asked a hypothetical that could become a possibility and am now being asked to provide empirical proof.

But none of this matters to you and others on this board. You don't like Trump, you don't like Flynn, you don't like Barr so any possible corruption/ wrong doing by the FBI that the DOJ determined was severe enough to have the case dismissed doesn't matter and can be swept away as simply as : "He admitted it"

And as usual, accusing all the others of bias is the icing on the cake.

Your whole narrative only comes to pass in the first place because it's about republicans that need some defending.

Sure it's true many don't like Trump Flynn and Barr, but to a larger point many don't trust them. For very good and solid reason. You seem to demand trust for them and distrust for the FBI for pretty vague reasons instead.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2020, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I fully agree many are seeing this differently than they may under circumstances other than it involving a "rich white guy who happens to be friends with the POTUS."

For once you're right.  A lot of people don't like "sneaky" ways of getting people do do things that they then call crimes.  Some have spoke out about how some segments of society are treated by police types.

I believe you buddy DJT called those people SOB's.

But now that's someone he had to fire for lying he knows it is those big bad FBI people not treating people fairly.

Again, I know you guys have no shame left so I just laugh.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's been widely reported that McCabe to Flynn "no need to involve WH counsel, doing so would escalate the case"

They even discussed how to answer if he asks "Do I need an attorney" Also how to answer if Flynn asks is this an investigation. I wonder why ask such a question before an interrogation? 

They further discuss that they don't need to tell him upfront that lying to them is a crime. Most likely because then he would have asked for a lawyer. but they were ready for that to. They talked about ways the could "casually slip it in"

There's also a handwritten note describing ways they can "get him".

Is any of that evidence?

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.  What is the source for all these claims?

Did McCabe talk to Flynn before he was questioned by the FBI?

As far as the FBI discussing the way to question Flynn, that is common practice.  They don't have to tell anyone that lying to them is a crime.  Since this was not a custodial interrogation they did not have to tell him he was entitled to a lawyer.  But apparently you are saying that McCabe spoke to Flynn before he was questioned.

And the FBI always describe how they plan to "get" the criminals.  That is there job.  

Not sure where you can claim anything there was inappropriate.  But I am not exactly sure what sources you sre quoting about what discussions.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So not informing someone of their Right to Counsel is just "sneaky"?

I don't know of a single law enforcement officer that advise subjects to get an attorney except when they are required to under Miranda.  Since this was not a custodial interrogation they were not required to say anything about legal counsel.

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But none of this matters to you and others on this board. You don't like Trump, you don't like Flynn, you don't like Barr so any possible corruption/ wrong doing by the FBI that the DOJ determined was severe enough to have the case dismissed doesn't matter and can be swept away as simply as : "He admitted it"

Actually you are the one with the blinders on.  I have pointed to multiple other sources of proof that Flynn lied other than his willingness to enter a plea bu tyou just sweep in under the rug and try to act like Flynn never lied and was just the target of a set up. 

If all of this was about my hatred for Trump then wouldn't I be arguing that Trump was wrong to force Flynn to resign?  In thi case I am 100% supporting Trumps position that Flynn lied and had to be removed from his position because of it.


 Maybe instead I just don't like liars implementing policy for my country.  Did you ever think of that?

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So not informing someone of their Right to Counsel is just "sneaky"?

Mirandizing someone is not a requirement for an interview like that. Flynn was not in custody.

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Got it. I simply asked a hypothetical that could become a possibility and am now being asked to provide empirical proof.

When I asked about it being a hypothetical you claimed it happened. Then I asked for evidence and now you seem to be the one getting "pissy."

(05-11-2020, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But none of this matters to you and others on this board. You don't like Trump, you don't like Flynn, you don't like Barr so any possible corruption/ wrong doing by the FBI that the DOJ determined was severe enough to have the case dismissed doesn't matter and can be swept away as simply as : "He admitted it"

Hollo already covered this, somewhat, but I'm just going to say that you're looking at this through the partisan lens. You're parroting right-wing talking points that are disinformation propagated by the administration. You're sanctimonious attitude about blind partisanship is one of the most ironic things that exists in P&R.