The Mueller Report thread

[Belsnickel]

(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. 

Answer to the first: no. I saw no mention of this in the documents.

Answer to the second: no. The writer posits which is urgent, the truth or getting him to lie. The same notes say the purpose is to resolve the case and see if he will lie.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 09:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Answer to the first: no. I saw no mention of this in the documents.

Answer to the second: no. The writer posits which is urgent, the truth or getting him to lie. The same notes say the purpose is to resolve the case and see if he will lie.

Guess we'll see as more is uncovered. I just take issue with dismissing the acts because "he admitted it".

We'll have to see how Strozk's question of How should we answer if Flynn asks of "do I need a lawyer" is answered. Seems like a silly question to ask in America. Who know's maybe the answer was "of course you should seek counsel before answering our questions", but reports indicate otherwise. 

Apologies they asked was it urgent to get him to lie, not the goal. The handwritten notes seem to indicate which way they were leaning.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we'll see as more is uncovered. I just take issue with dismissing the acts because "he admitted it".

We'll have to see how Strozk's question of How should we answer if Flynn asks of "do I need a lawyer" is answered. Seems like a silly question to ask in America. Who know's maybe the answer was "of course you should seek counsel before answering our questions", but reports indicate otherwise. 

Apologies they asked was it urgent to get him to lie, not the goal. The handwritten notes seem to indicate which way they were leaning.

Strzok was providing questions for someone else to be prepared for in requesting the interview with Flynn.

The handwritten notes indicate the author was trying to be careful in not making it seem like they were playing those games because doing so would be a threat to the agency. So it goes against what the DoJ is claiming.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 09:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Strzok was providing questions for someone else to be prepared for in requesting the interview with Flynn.

The handwritten notes indicate the author was trying to be careful in not making it seem like they were playing those games because doing so would be a threat to the agency. So it goes against what the DoJ is claiming.

Doesn't really explain why the question was asked does it? To determine why would require "critical thinking", you seemed to use it when you interpreted the handwritten notes. Your view of what ht e handwritten notes indicate do not negate what the DOJ is claiming. You just want it to. 

As others have said: More to follow. I'm just not ready to dismiss it as simply as you are with...he admitted he lied.

Where the hell is Fred? 

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2020, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't really explain why the question was asked does it? To determine why would require "critical thinking", you seemed to use it when you interpreted the handwritten notes. Your view of what ht e handwritten notes indicate do not negate what the DOJ is claiming. You just want it to. 

As others have said: More to follow. I'm just not ready to dismiss it as simply as you are with...he admitted he lied.

Where the hell is Fred? 

He listed it because the person should be prepared to answer it. Anything further is making an assumption.

As for the notes, that's not my interpretation. It's literally what the notes say.

I am not dismissing these allegations because he admitted he lied. I am dismissing these allegations because the evidence isn't there. I am dismissive of the idea Flynn's case should be dismissed because he admitted he lied.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2020, 10:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He listed it because the person should be prepared to answer it. Anything further is making an assumption.

As for the notes, that's not my interpretation. It's literally what the notes say.

I am not dismissing these allegations because he admitted he lied. I am dismissing these allegations because the evidence isn't there. I am dismissive of the idea Flynn's case should be dismissed because he admitted he lied.

Who were they sending an intern??

They are written words, to say they are not open to interpretation; especially, given the personal bias we all now about, is being naive at best.  

Of course you did. When it was first posted your reply was "He admitted it". No really sure what you consider evidence....

But I digress..as I said, we'll see. I'm just glad I'm not backing Stokz, actions. I think he is a lying weasel that did whatever he could to get in someone's pants, because "we will stop it".

[SunsetBengal]

(05-08-2020, 10:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He listed it because the person should be prepared to answer it. Anything further is making an assumption.

As for the notes, that's not my interpretation. It's literally what the notes say.

I am not dismissing these allegations because he admitted he lied. I am dismissing these allegations because the evidence isn't there. I am dismissive of the idea Flynn's case should be dismissed because he admitted he lied.

Don't take my word for it..

https://mycbs4.com/news/nation-world/ap-exclusive-justice-dept-dropping-flynns-criminal-case

Quote:Other documents show the FBI had been prepared weeks before its interview to drop its investigation into whether he was acting at the direction of Russia. Later that month, though, as the White House insisted that Flynn had never discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, FBI officials grew more concerned by Flynn’s conversations with the diplomat and kept the investigation open to question him about that. Two agents visited him at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.

But Thursday's filing, signed by District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Tim Shea, says the FBI had no basis to continue investigating Flynn after failing to find he had done anything illegal. It says there was nothing on his Russia calls “to indicate an inappropriate relationship between Mr. Flynn and a foreign power." The department also contends Flynn's answers during the interview were equivocal and indirect, rather than false, and weren't relevant to the underlying investigation into whether the Trump campaign and Russia were illegally coordinating.
The memo also cites what it describes as internal uncertainty within the FBI over whether Flynn had lied, noting that the agents who interviewed him reported that he had a “very sure demeanor" and that-then FBI Director James Comey had said it was a “close" call.

[Benton]

(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.

Eh, I still don't understand that line of thinking.

Duress of what? Jail? Nearly every plea deal would then be made under duress.

He cut a deal,admitting to a crime. Their verbage may change a bit, but in every court I've been in, a defendant is asked about a plea whenever it's entered, and it includes some language about not entering it under duress. So the guy, at some point, stood up in court, said he wasn't under duress.

This is a pretty solid example of why there should be even more separation of powers. Here's a guy who did illegal actions for the executive branch, got caught, and now gets off with a crime because of it. It's not like he killed anyone, but it's still people accepting illegal acts because of partisanship.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-08-2020, 11:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I still don't understand that line of thinking.

Duress of what? Jail? Nearly every plea deal would then be made under duress.

He cut a deal,admitting to a crime. Their verbage may change a bit, but in every court I've been in, a defendant is asked about a plea whenever it's entered, and it includes some language about not entering it under duress. So the guy, at some point, stood up in court, said he wasn't under duress.

This is a pretty solid example of why there should be even more separation of powers. Here's a guy who did illegal actions for the executive branch, got caught, and now gets off with a crime because of it. It's not like he killed anyone, but it's still people accepting illegal acts because of partisanship.

Duress in the way that they threatened to go after his son.  Now, that's only the General's words, so we'll have to wait for that part to become pubic record.  However, if the General is telling the truth, what father wouldn't take the hit to save his family?

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2020, 11:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I still don't understand that line of thinking.

Duress of what? Jail? Nearly every plea deal would then be made under duress.

He cut a deal,admitting to a crime. Their verbage may change a bit, but in every court I've been in, a defendant is asked about a plea whenever it's entered, and it includes some language about not entering it under duress. So the guy, at some point, stood up in court, said he wasn't under duress.

This is a pretty solid example of why there should be even more separation of powers. Here's a guy who did illegal actions for the executive branch, got caught, and now gets off with a crime because of it. It's not like he killed anyone, but it's still people accepting illegal acts because of partisanship.

Exactly. If he had an ounce of shame, he would commit hari-kari with that kind of snowflake defense:

"So, what kind of duress were you under?"

"(sniff, sniff) They kept me in a room and asked me questions? (sniff, sniff)"

"And what else? Did they waterboard you? Did they flay you? Did they electrocute your genitalia?"

"(sniff) No! They just asked me questions!!! And I didn't know if I should get a lawyer or anything!!! I just don't know anything about all this!!! They were really mean!"

"Those bastard!!! How insidious!!!"

[samhain]

(05-08-2020, 11:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Duress in the way that they threatened to go after his son.  Now, that's only the General's words, so we'll have to wait for that part to become pubic record.  However, if the General is telling the truth, what father wouldn't take the hit to save his family?

That cuts both ways.  Flynn was a higher profile guy than his son.  If my old man was going to be disgraced in front of a national audience because he was lying to save my skin, you'd best believe I'd rather him tell the truth and deal with my end personally.

Also, I don't want to see anybody's pubic record, bro.

[Bengalzona]

Oh! BTW.... as my friend Brian pointed out... when he plead guilty, the Republicans controlled the executive branch and both houses of Congress.

Take all the time you need to think about that one.

Hmmm... what if the Republican-controlled FBI screwed the pooch on this one?!?!?!

[Dill]

(05-08-2020, 11:09 PM)Benton Wrote:
Eh, I still don't understand that line of thinking.

Duress of what? Jail? Nearly every plea deal would then be made under duress.

He cut a deal,admitting to a crime. Their verbage may change a bit, but in every court I've been in, a defendant is asked about a plea whenever it's entered, and it includes some language about not entering it under duress. So the guy, at some point, stood up in court, said he wasn't under duress.

This is a pretty solid example of why there should be even more separation of powers. Here's a guy who did illegal actions for the executive branch, got caught, and now gets off with a crime because of it. It's not like he killed anyone, but it's still people accepting illegal acts because of partisanship.

If you could be a little more partisan this would make more sense.  You are assuming there are still actions which, from some neutral perspective, everyone could agree are crimes, established by the relation of empirical, agreed-upon facts to an existing statute. Well there might be, but that is no longer the criterion. Now what is important is the relation of accused and his prosecutors to the president. Something called interpretation then adjusts facts and statutes around that. So the issue is not whether Flynn committed the acts in question, but whether it was the "Deep state"--duress or no--that exposed them. (It was ok when Trump accused Flynn of lying.)

This is probably confusing to a journalist accustomed to non-partisan prosecution and verdicts completely limited by evidence and law.

Regarding the second bolded--its an institution which is accepting illegal acts because of partisanship, or perhaps better said, an "independent" institution now captured and bent to partisan ends, with the blessing of millions of Americans who --their eyes on this false danger called the "deep state"--think this capture somehow a "defense" of their guy and therefore their rights.

[samhain]

(05-08-2020, 11:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Exactly. If he had an ounce of shame, he would commit hari-kari with that kind of snowflake defense:

"So, what kind of duress were you under?"

"(sniff, sniff) They kept me in a room and asked me questions? (sniff, sniff)"

"And what else? Did they waterboard you? Did they flay you? Did they electrocute your genitalia?"

"(sniff) No! They just asked me questions!!! And I didn't know if I should get a lawyer or anything!!! I just don't know anything about all this!!! They were really mean!"

"Those bastard!!! How insidious!!!"

I recall when Hillary the boogeywoman worst-person-ever to the right took questions from Congress for 11 hours under "duress" in nationally televised hearings.  She and everyone else on both sides knew it was a fishing expedition orchestrated by the right to get her to either give up something worthy of indictment or commit perjury.  I didn't hear her cry about it like this tough guy.  She sat there and punked that little goat Trey Gowdy, leaving Republicans clamoring to investigate for the next 4 years, with total control of the executive and legislative for a solid two, for jack squat.  Mike Flynn has to question his manhood a bit if he compares his actions under duress to HRC's.  He got his ass busted for perjury, then had to pimp out his dignity and manhood by admitting he was practically wetting his pants at the idea of answering questions without lying.

[*bfine32*]

This is great.

[samhain]

(05-09-2020, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is great.

I like food.

[Benton]

(05-08-2020, 11:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Duress in the way that they threatened to go after his son.  Now, that's only the General's words, so we'll have to wait for that part to become pubic record.  However, if the General is telling the truth, what father wouldn't take the hit to save his family?

Duress and stress aren't synonymous. Legally (and I'm sure Fred can probably clean up or clarify this), there's some requirements that need to be met for duress. There has to be a threat of physical harm, no way to circumvent the threat and be at no fault. In other words, if you're guilty of something you aren't under duress for being penalized for it. You're just... guilty. 

My son and I rob a bank. I get caught. Sorta. They know I did it and they've got proof, but a judge or jury could always rule in my favor. So prosecutors offer me a plea deal. The deal means I do half the time of a maximum charge and they drop the investigation (meaning I don't have to worry about them going after my son).

Is that duress?

If I take the deal, should someone come back later and overturn it, saying I only made the deal to save my son?

Or am I just a dirty crook who had friends in high places?


We live in the age of plea deals. Courts are overloaded at every level. If the "he was only doing it to protect his co-conspirator" defense works, then that opens the door to overturning a lot of convictions.

[Benton]

(05-08-2020, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hopefully the DOJ investigates and those that abused their station for personal reasons are held accountable. 

Well the last time the doj investigated someone abusing his station for personal reasons we got... Here.

[BmorePat87]

(05-08-2020, 10:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't take my word for it..

https://mycbs4.com/news/nation-world/ap-exclusive-justice-dept-dropping-flynns-criminal-case

Tim Shea, Barr’s former aide and a recent DOJ hire of his, claims this. The prosecutors on the case removed themselves from it when he did that.

I’m not sure how citing his claims counter Matt saying that his claims are bogus or, more importantly, how his claims counter Flynn twice admitting to lying...

[Belsnickel]

I want to be clear about something, here. I'm not a big pro-law enforcement guy. I have many criticisms about our criminal justice system and think there are a lot of things we should be looking to change to make our system more fair and equitable. This isn't to say I dislike LEOs and think the LE community is out to get people. I genuinely put a lot of trust in most members of LE and recognize they are out there to do their job to the best of their abilities and it is an often impossible one.

The issue I have with the way the administration is handling this is that it is blatant political/partisan meddling in the criminal justice system. To put it as another poster has in this thread, anyone with a brain and a pulse can see that. Political meddling in the justice system is corruption of the justice system. It isn't solving the problems of inequity but rather furthering it. And instead of the side of the aisle that runs around with thin blue line flags and Punisher skulls all over the place supporting the LE community, they have suddenly turned on them based on a disinformation campaign propagated by a corrupt administration that is bent on nothing else but holding power.

"Conservatives" are showing their true colors in this mess. They are shedding the ideologies they claim to hold to in favor of nothing but blind partisanship.