The Mueller Report thread

[Goalpost]

https://www.newsmax.com/us/strzok-page/2020/04/30/id/965493/

So again. A problem goes back to the 302's. And once again our lovebirds are again involved. Don't read the opinions of others but rather just focus on how Strzok and Page communicated in texts. I believe the original 302's are still not out in public, maybe even not known yet where they are.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2020, 04:47 PM)Goalpost Wrote: https://www.newsmax.com/us/strzok-page/2020/04/30/id/965493/

So again.  A problem goes back to the 302's.  And once again our lovebirds are again involved.  Don't read the opinions of others but rather just focus on how Strzok and Page communicated in texts.  I believe the original 302's are still not out in public, maybe even not known yet where they are.

There is no story here without seeing what was changed.

It might be a big issue or it might be nothing.  I don't know without seeing what was edited.

NewsMax is a pro-conservative "sensationalist" publication.  Just look at the other headlines on that page.

[Benton]

(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?

Sure, but ...
1- did they threaten to go after the son, or is this just speculation?
2- why the noble shield of fatherhood for protecting the son? Maybe the son shouldered more guilt than the father? 

Just spitballing, but maybe Flynn lied to protect some horrible monster who committed horrible acts who happens to be related to him.

[hollodero]

(05-11-2020, 04:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Yeah... somewhat. This is getting really tough to watch at times. How there *might* be some misdeeds from FBI agents and so it makes total sense to have the AG declare Flynn free of all charges. Of which there are more than lieing, but never mind that detail.

I do find it ironic how the "bad cops" option should be on everyone's mind, while the glaringly obvious counter-thesis is flatout neglected, that there's a corrupt AG who always does best he can to let the president and his wrong-doing buddies off the hook.

An AG, after all, also getting involved in sentencing guidelines, talking about campaign spying conspiracies, envoking task forces to find dirt on investigators, solely rejecting the findings of his own department that cleared investigators, misleading the public on the "no indicting a president"-policy's relevance and then some on the Mueller report, being referenced to Zelensky as a go-to guy for investigating Biden, having I guess 10 zillion law experts etc. that already openly contradicted him on pretty much everything and demanded his resignation - that guy should have more credibility as multiple FBI agents, those traditionally hard left leaning bunch that were all in the boat of Hillary, to an extent it let them completely lose all their ethics and frame and extort an innocent man. It's sad how little sense this even makes.

And taking this kind of Trump-friendly viewpoint and then calling others out on bias, that is indeed ironic.

[Dill]

(05-11-2020, 04:47 PM)Goalpost Wrote: https://www.newsmax.com/us/strzok-page/2020/04/30/id/965493/

So again.  A problem goes back to the 302's.  And once again our lovebirds are again involved.  Don't read the opinions of others but rather just focus on how Strzok and Page communicated in texts.  I believe the original 302's are still not out in public, maybe even not known yet where they are.

Er, shouldn't we rather focus on whether or not Flynn disclosed that he was working for Turkey while being considered for NSC advisor, and whether or not he had been urging the Russian ambassador NOT to respond to Obama's sanctions on Russia for interfering in our election? 

Is that all about "opinions" or are there some factual questions already answered there?

What could texting "lovebirds" say that would alter the factual record already established and signed off on by their superiors and underlings?

[Benton]

(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"

Or could it be that people don't like seeing corruption in the doj and executive branch?

Take trump and Barr out of the equation and this is still an abuse of power. 

[fredtoast]

Judge just refused to rule on DOJ's motion to dismiss. Says he is going to consider third party amicus curia briefs before ruling.

I have never heard of this happening in a criminal case before. Just shows how politically charged this has become. I think judge just wants to make it clear he is concerned about possibility of DOJ making a move based on protecting the President instead of seeking justice.

In the end I don't see how any judge could force a case to go forward if the prosecuting attorney is not going to try and prosecute.

[GMDino]

(05-13-2020, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Judge just refused to rule on DOJ's motion to dismiss.  Says he is going to consider third party amicus curia briefs before ruling.

I have never heard of this happening in a criminal case before.  Just shows how politically charged this has become.  I think judge just wants to make it clear he is concerned about possibility of DOJ making a move based on protecting the President instead of seeking justice.

In the end I don't see how any judge could force a case to go forward if the prosecuting attorney is not going to try and prosecute.

Hasn't the case been prosecuted already?  All that was left was sentencing.  The if he appealed he would win by default I guess?

[Benton]

(05-13-2020, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Judge just refused to rule on DOJ's motion to dismiss.  Says he is going to consider third party amicus curia briefs before ruling.

I have never heard of this happening in a criminal case before.  Just shows how politically charged this has become.  I think judge just wants to make it clear he is concerned about possibility of DOJ making a move based on protecting the President instead of seeking justice.

In the end I don't see how any judge could force a case to go forward if the prosecuting attorney is not going to try and prosecute.

Kind of surprised Barr did this, if he did indeed do it at Trump's request. It would've been easier to let the case wrap up and trump pardon Flynn before the end of the year. This way, they're risking... Well I'm not sure what, as I've never seen a judge not accept a prosecutors motion to dismiss. But I'm guessing they're risking flynn going to jail and trump possibly not being in office to let him out 

Just seems like a bad way to get a minion out of trouble. It's not like manafort where the best trump could do was get him moved to his house.

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/flynn-case-isnt-over-until-judge-says-its-over/

Quote:By John Gleeson, David O'Neil and Marshall Miller 
May 11, 2020 at 6:52 p.m. EDT



John Gleeson served as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York and chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in that district. David O’Neil served as the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Marshall Miller served as the highest-ranking career official in the Criminal Division and as chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District.

The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case — and it shouldn’t be. The Justice Department has made conflicting statements to the federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan. He has the authority, the tools and the obligation to assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.



The department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case is actually just a request — one that requires “leave of the court” before it is effective. The executive branch has unreviewable authority to decide whether to prosecute a case. But once it secures an indictment, the proceedings necessarily involve the judicial branch. And the law provides that the court — not the executive branch — decides whether an indictment may be dismissed. The responsible exercise of that authority is particularly important here, where a defendant’s plea of guilty has already been accepted. Government motions to dismiss at this stage are virtually unheard of.

Prosecutors deserve a “presumption of regularity” — the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades. If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request. The independence of the court protects us all when executive-branch decisions smack of impropriety; it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.


There has been nothing regular about the department’s effort to dismiss the Flynn case. The record reeks of improper political influence. Hours after the career prosecutor abruptly withdrew, the department moved to dismiss the indictment in a filing signed only by an interim U.S. attorney, a former aide to Attorney General William P. Barr whom Barr had installed in the position months before.


The department now says it cannot prove its case. But Flynn had already admitted his guilt to lying to the FBI, and the court had accepted his plea. The purported reasons for the dismissal clash not only with the department’s previous arguments in Flynn’s case — where it assured the court of an important federal interest in punishing Flynn’s dishonesty, an interest it now dismisses as insubstantial — but also with arguments it has routinely made for years in similar cases not involving defendants close to the president. And all of this followed a similarly troubling reversal, also preceded by the withdrawal of career prosecutors, in the sentencing of Roger Stone.

Courts often inquire as to the reasons for a government motion to dismiss, but this is the rare case that requires extra scrutiny, to ensure that, in the Supreme Court’s words, “the waters of justice are not polluted.”


Fortunately, the court has many tools to vindicate the public interest. It can require the career prosecutor to explain why he stepped off the case, as another federal judge recently did when the Trump administration attempted to replace a trial team litigating the politicization of the census. It can appoint an independent attorney to act as a “friend of the court,” ensuring a full, adversarial inquiry, as the judge in the Flynn case has done in other situations where the department abdicated its prosecutorial role. If necessary, the court can hold hearings to resolve factual discrepancies.


And the court could compel the department to reveal the one thing it has thus far refused to show — the actual evidence underlying the prosecution. To help Flynn, the department has made public documents it jealously guards in almost every other case, including confidential memos and internal deliberations. But it has balked at disclosing the transcripts of the very conversations with the Russian ambassador that Flynn admitted he lied about when the FBI interviewed him.

The department once argued that those conversations confirmed Flynn’s guilt. It now claims those conversations were innocuous. By ordering disclosure of the transcripts, the court can empower the American public to judge for itself — and assess why the department is trying to walk away from this important case.

Flynn’s guilt has already been adjudicated. So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing.

[GMDino]

Sullivan appointed a former judge to argue the opposition to the motion to dismiss and also raised the ante saying he wants to be briefed on holding Flynn in contempt for perjury. pic.twitter.com/uuDTAst6mt

— John Dalton (@Dalton642) May 13, 2020

 

[Benton]

(05-13-2020, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Sullivan appointed a former judge to argue the opposition to the motion to dismiss and also raised the ante saying he wants to be briefed on holding Flynn in contempt for perjury. pic.twitter.com/uuDTAst6mt

— John Dalton (@Dalton642) May 13, 2020

 

Which is another interesting issue.

If Flynn didn't perjure when he admitted to perjury then he perjured when didn't not admit to perjury. So he perjured his perjure by perjuring about his... Perjury.

[Belsnickel]

(05-13-2020, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Sullivan appointed a former judge to argue the opposition to the motion to dismiss and also raised the ante saying he wants to be briefed on holding Flynn in contempt for perjury. pic.twitter.com/uuDTAst6mt

— John Dalton (@Dalton642) May 13, 2020

 

Did you listen to Ken talking about this case? It was very interesting as he talked about these amicus briefs. Also, it was nice because, amazingly, he said what I have been saying (albeit he addressed it with a different angle).

[GMDino]

(05-15-2020, 07:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did you listen to Ken talking about this case? It was very interesting as he talked about these amicus briefs. Also, it was nice because, amazingly, he said what I have been saying (albeit he addressed it with a different angle).

I usually catch that over the weekend while working in the yard.  It will be interesting.

Then I listen to LRC and scream at my phone about Rich Lowry.

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2020, 08:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: I usually catch that over the weekend while working in the yard.  It will be interesting.

Then I listen to LRC and scream at my phone about Rich Lowry.

It really is interesting how much the GOP has shifted with Trump at the head. So many of the actual conservatives were diehard Never Trumpers at first, putting their party ideals first, then half or more abandoned that in favor of toeing the party line.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2020, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It really is interesting how much the GOP has shifted with Trump at the head. So many of the actual conservatives were diehard Never Trumpers at first, putting their party ideals first, then half or more abandoned that in favor of toeing the party line.

Interesting, but is it surprising?

I mean the old school, true conservatives never flipped but too many of these guys are just looking for "clicks". 

[fredtoast]

(05-13-2020, 08:17 PM)Benton Wrote: Kind of surprised Barr did this, if he did indeed do it at Trump's request. It would've been easier to let the case wrap up and trump pardon Flynn before the end of the year.

This is not about Flynn.  It is about discrediting the entire FBI and DOJ in order to protect Trump from any other charges.

Here is how things work in the echo chamber.

"Any news media that says anything bad about Trump is lying because of politics."


"Any law enforcement agency that finds evidence of corruption or criminal behavior in the Trump administration is lying because of politics."


"Any judge that finds Trump or any of his asssociates guilty of misconduct is lying because of politics."

Once everyone is made to understand this Trump will be free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants with no punishment.

[Dill]

(05-15-2020, 11:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not about Flynn.  It is about discrediting the entire FBI and DOJ in order to protect Trump from any other charges.

Here is how things work in the echo chamber.
"Any news media that says anything bad about Trump is lying because of politics."
"Any law enforcement agency that finds evidence of corruption or criminal behavior in the Trump administration is lying because of politics."
"Any judge that finds Trump or any of his asssociates guilty of misconduct is lying because of politics."

Once everyone is made to understand this Trump will be free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants with no punishment.

I think this is right.

It is about creating doubt, suspicion--an apparent "pattern" of deep state opposition to Trump, which then "explains" why there are so many investigations into a guy with 6 bankruptcies and a curious dependence on undisclosed foreign capital who hires "fixers" to take care of illegal financial transactions and pays newspaper editors to bury stories.

The "emerging details" tactic renews the franchise every four months or so. "X has finally released the documents" or "DOJ to release list of Y" or "Newly declassified emails show Z!" 

Some one posts a story on the latest expose like the hammer has finally come down on ObamaHillaryBiden, and then "poof"--one or two posts and the expose is exposed. The OP disappears. And other posters argue whether Hunter Biden = the unprecedented scale of Trump incompetence, abuse of power, nepotism and corruption apparent only to people who "just hate" Trump.

Two months go by and cycle repeats.  Shameless and baffling to non-Republicans, but works again and again for the base.

[GMDino]

Update on Flynn.  He lied.

And here’s what Flynn said to the FBI. It’s clear beyond any reasonable doubt that he lied, even apart from the fact that he admitted twice in court that he lied. https://t.co/SOJGReP5aR pic.twitter.com/XSuag5x0dQ

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 29, 2020

 

[Dill]

(05-29-2020, 07:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Update on Flynn.  He lied.

No "there" there for a certain demographic.

Someone is going to have to explain why lying to the FBI about this conversation with Kislyak was bad.