The Mueller Report thread

[SunsetBengal]

(05-07-2020, 06:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except, you know, he admitted to perjury. But hey, let's just ignore that he said "I did the crimes."

Also: https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show

A plea under duress is a false confession.  This isn't about Gen. Flynn, nearly as much as it is about a rogue DOJ exercising undue authority.  As a policy man, I would have thought that you would have picked that up from the moment the memos were released.  It seems to me that their intent was to create a crime, where there was none.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A plea under duress is a false confession.  This isn't about Gen. Flynn, nearly as much as it is about a rogue DOJ exercising undue authority.  As a policy man, I would have thought that you would have picked that up from the moment the memos were released.  It seems to me that their intent was to create a crime, where there was none.

In what way was he under duress when he entered his guilty plea? What is the evidence of their intent that you mention? In what way can an investigator create a perjury crime? Did they force him to lie?

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A plea under duress is a false confession.  This isn't about Gen. Flynn, nearly as much as it is about a rogue DOJ exercising undue authority.  As a policy man, I would have thought that you would have picked that up from the moment the memos were released.  It seems to me that their intent was to create a crime, where there was none.

But the most important thing is he admitted to lying.

I'm astonished by the Left's new mentality. They've truly done a 180 on this one.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the most important thing is he admitted to lying.

I'm astonished by the Left's new mentality. They've truly done a 180 on this one.

It's almost as astonishing as the right's stance on the rule of law.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's almost as astonishing as the right's stance on the rule of law.

Not even close....#Whatever helps you sleep at night..

[BmorePat87]

(05-08-2020, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A plea under duress is a false confession.  This isn't about Gen. Flynn, nearly as much as it is about a rogue DOJ exercising undue authority.  As a policy man, I would have thought that you would have picked that up from the moment the memos were released.  It seems to me that their intent was to create a crime, where there was none.

That could seem like the intent of you only focus on half of one sentence.

Even if we entertained the false narrative that their goal was to get him to lie, he could have... told the truth. You can argue that the case against him violating the Logan Act was flimsy, but there was a legit reason to investigate and ultimately no one compelled him to lie.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That could seem like the intent of you only focus on half of one sentence.

Even if we entertained the false narrative that their goal was to get him to lie, he could have... told the truth. You can argue that the case against him violating the Logan Act was flimsy, but there was a legit reason to investigate and ultimately no one compelled him to lie.

Of course the Left focuses on the "correct" half of one sentence.

This is great...

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not even close....#Whatever helps you sleep at night..

I sleep fine knowing that I am not a willing participant in the destruction of the systems holding up our republic.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-08-2020, 07:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way was he under duress when he entered his guilty plea? What is the evidence of their intent that you mention? In what way can an investigator create a perjury crime? Did they force him to lie?

Those questions will be answered in full, in the coming months by the Attorney General, when he issues his findings and recommendations in this case.  The fact that upon the revealing of this new evidence, the DOJ suddenly dismissed the charges, should be indication enough that some serious foul play was at hand. 

If serious improprieties didn't occur, why the sudden and drastic attempt at mitigation?

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those questions will be answered in full, in the coming months by the Attorney General, when he issues his findings and recommendations in this case.  The fact that upon the revealing of this new evidence, the DOJ suddenly dismissed the charges, should be indication enough that some serious foul play was at hand. 

If serious improprieties didn't occur, why the sudden and drastic attempt at mitigation?

Political interference in the judicial process.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I sleep fine knowing that I am not a willing participant in the destruction of the systems holding up our republic.

Such as possibly violating the Rule of Law? 

Any means necessary.

This is great... 

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Those questions will be answered in full, in the coming months by the Attorney General, when he issues his findings and recommendations in this case.  The fact that upon the revealing of this new evidence, the DOJ suddenly dismissed the charges, should be indication enough that some serious foul play was at hand. 

If serious improprieties didn't occur, why the sudden and drastic attempt at mitigation?

Anyone with a brain and a pulse knows the intention was not to seek the truth. 

Hopefully the DOJ investigates and those that abused their station for personal reasons are held accountable. 

I honestly cannot believe the Left is doubling down on this.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Such as possibly violating the Rule of Law? 

Any means necessary.

This is great... 

The rule of law is being dismantled by the current administration. Defending them is taking part in the destruction of our republic. There is nothing great about this.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone with a brain and a pulse knows the intention was not to seek the truth. 

Hopefully the DOJ investigates and those that abused their station for personal reasons are held accountable. 

I honestly cannot believe the Left is doubling down on this.

Anyone with a brain and a pulse should be able to read the documents released and understand the context doesn't provide any evidence for the accusations you levy. But not everyone likes to read primary sources and make their own determinations. Not everyone is capable of thinking critically about these things.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The rule of law is being dismantled by the current administration. Defending them is taking part in the destruction of our republic. There is nothing great about this.

I've not defended anyone in this thread. I just think documents that reveal possibly something as atrocious as this should not be simply dismissed as "Well, he admitted it"..

But to each his own. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've not defended anyone in this thread. I just think documents that reveal possibly something as atrocious as this should not be simply dismissed as "Well, he admitted it"..

But to each his own. 

Except if you read the documents critically instead of relying on someone else to do your thinking for you there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in them. There is nothing atrocious.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except if you read the documents critically instead of relying on someone else to do your thinking for you there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing in them. There is nothing atrocious.

Do the documents indicate they told Flynn "You don't need a lawyer..."?

Do the documents ask "Is our goal to get him to lie"?

Answer yes to one of those then you have questions. 

Answer yes to both of those then you possibly have a violation of a citizen's rights. 

Still have no idea who I've defended in this discussion. 

Hell, I'd pay good money to get Fred's take on this. That would be amazing, I can assume.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-08-2020, 08:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do the documents indicate they told Flynn "You don't need a lawyer..."?

Do the documents ask "Is our goal to get him to lie"?

Answer yes to one of those then you have questions. 

Answer yes to both of those then you possibly have a violation of a citizen's rights. 

Still have no idea who I've defended in this discussion. 

Hell, I'd pay good money to get Fred's take on this. That would be amazing, I can assume.

General Flynn, you've defended General Flynn.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 08:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: General Flynn, you've defended General Flynn.

Not in the least. 

I think it was just one of those canned responses. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-08-2020, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The fact that upon the revealing of this new evidence, the DOJ suddenly dismissed the charges, should be indication enough that some serious foul play was at hand. 

Why? The AG is a political appointee, Barr has repeatedly broken norms to serve Trump's demands, and the argument the DOJ is now making is that they cannot prove that Flynn lied... 

It's telling that the only name on the motion to the court was a recent hire of Barr's (and his former aide), not any of the prosecutors involved in the case.