ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags court cases , donald trump , Michael Flynn , perjury cases , Robert Mueller , William Barr

Reply
Old 21st May 2020, 06:47 PM   #441
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Hey Ziggurat, assuming you're still pushing the line that Van Grack withheld Brady material, I've got a question for you...

Why does the DoJ's motion to dismiss characterize the material as "newly discovered"? Are they lying in a court document to cover up for Van Grack? Assuming that the government had suppressed that material, wouldn't a proper filing not attribute the lack of disclosure to something else?

Last edited by Beeyon; 21st May 2020 at 06:47 PM. Reason: A word
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 06:56 PM   #442
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Hey Ziggurat, assuming you're still pushing the line that Van Grack withheld Brady material, I've got a question for you...

Why does the DoJ's motion to dismiss characterize the material as "newly discovered"? Are they lying in a court document to cover up for Van Grack? Assuming that the government had suppressed that material, wouldn't a proper filing not attribute the lack of disclosure to something else?
Maybe it is newly discovered. But here's the thing, even supposing that's the case: Van Grack had a legal obligation to find it. He didn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 08:05 PM   #443
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Maybe it is newly discovered. But here's the thing, even supposing that's the case: Van Grack had a legal obligation to find it. He didn't.
Well, that's only if it actually is Brady, but yeah.

---

Kinda strange how the FBI, in trying to preserve it's reputation, released a statement saying that the Jensen disclosure material had been provided to Horowitz and Durham. Why not mention the Special Counsel's Office too for good measure? Hell of a lot we don't know here.

Last edited by Beeyon; 21st May 2020 at 08:06 PM.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 09:19 PM   #444
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,622
The reason why Flynn was charged with lying was because he cooperated a lot for a long time - if he had not, there would have been way, way more and more serious charges.
So it is pretty odd that his defenders want to excuse the least of his offenses.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 10:08 PM   #445
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The reason why Flynn was charged with lying was because he cooperated a lot for a long time - if he had not, there would have been way, way more and more serious charges.
So it is pretty odd that his defenders want to excuse the least of his offenses.
I heard this excuse before, that they had bigger crimes to charge him with but withheld because they had bigger fish to fry. This was back before the dud of the Mueller report came out, when some people were convinced that Flynn was going to help take down Trump.

It didn’t play out that way.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:30 PM   #446
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,207
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

Let's say the police frame you for a crime. You know they framed you, but you have no way of proving it, so you might rationally plead guilty to the crime to minimize your sentence even knowing for certain both that you are innocent and that the police framed you. If evidence later comes out that shows how the police framed you, you might well want to withdraw your plea and contest the charges. What changed isn't your knowledge of your own guilty, or even your knowledge that the police framed you. What changed is your ability to demonstrate it.
Let's say you make something up out of thin air. You know you made it up, but you have no way of proving you didn't make it up, so you might rationally admit that you just made it up.

Nah, never happen.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:45 PM   #447
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I heard this excuse before, that they had bigger crimes to charge him with but withheld because they had bigger fish to fry. This was back before the dud of the Mueller report came out, when some people were convinced that Flynn was going to help take down Trump.

It didn’t play out that way.
Everything about Flynn played out exactly as expected up to the point when Flynn decided he would no longer stick to his side of the deal with the FBI.

As in all cases in which the FBI is investigating one person as the conduit to a larger subject of interest, Flynn was given the VIP treatment of defendants in return for giving extensive interviews and offering to testify against other lawbreakers - something he has done in part.
Because the FBI wanted to (and has) used Fynn as a witness, charging whim with more than the bare minimum to ensure cooperation would make it easier for his testimony to be impeached. That is why the prosecutors only picked lying to the FBI because they had already to decided that Flynn wasn't really the guy they wanted.
Flynn was NEVER the target, he was the means to get other convictions, for example against his business partner Bijan Kian.
In return, everyone assume that Flynn would get 6months tops, on probation. The big scandal here is that the poor, entrapped Fynn would have to reveal crimes he and his company had been part of, testify and in return go home free.

But that wasn't good enough for Flynn, which is why he blew up the agreement - because Publicity is all that matters when you expect a Pardon.


https://www.courthousenews.com/forme...bying-charges/
Quote:
It was largely anticipated ahead of Kian’s trial that Flynn would testify as a star witness against his one-time business partner. But after more than a year of cooperation with in hopes of a lenient sentence, prosecutors revealed they had new doubts about Flynn – his recounting of events was no longer trustworthy, they argued in a motion filed Friday.
Flynn and his son committed crimes for which they would receive no jail time in return for cooperation. Flynn agreed to this and later broke the deal, becoming a liability instead of an asset.
That is why the prosecutors no longer asked for no jail time - and that is why he should go to jail, because letting him go free makes it almost impossible to get cooperating witnesses in the future.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:09 AM   #448
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,622
To illustrate: asking for the charges against Flynn to be dropped is like a Cartel Enforcer, haven been given immunity for his crimes besides a minor charge for drug possession in return for helping the case against his bosses, including testifying in court

turn around and

not only not testify, but demand that the drug charge be dropped.


It is utterly astounding.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:31 AM   #449
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The appeals court is now demanding that Sullivan respond to this petition.

https://thehill.com/regulation/49904...ismiss-charges
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1263545187575320576

Quote:
At least somebody on the DC Circuit thinks the restrictive reading of 48(a) is plausible enough to require briefing on writ of mandate. Doesn't mean Flynn will win, but requiring a response to a writ petition is a significant step in that direction.

Note the weird procedural posture. Normally, though the lower court is nominally asked to respond, the opposing party would file the response and oppose the petition for writ. Here, there is no opposing party -- so does Sullivan have his amicus judge respond?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:45 AM   #450
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,138
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/statu...90150384152576

Quote:
Reupping, be virtually every single person weighing in on Flynn seems to misunderstand this:

Schrodinger's Materiality: Bill Barr's DOJ Has an Active Filing Arguing Flynn's Lies Were Material
Article embedded in tweet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:56 AM   #451
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Hell of a lot we don't know here.
True. For example, we don't know what Flynn actually said to the Russian ambassador. The transcript and recording have never been released, not to Flynn's counsel, not even to Flynn himself. Which rather compounds the problem of the missing 302's.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 10:29 AM   #452
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,220
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
True. For example, we don't know what Flynn actually said to the Russian ambassador. The transcript and recording have never been released, not to Flynn's counsel, not even to Flynn himself. Which rather compounds the problem of the missing 302's.
Who has the power to release it and why haven't they ? Hmm....
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:13 PM   #453
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Who has the power to release it and why haven't they ? Hmm....
At least one person who has seen the transcript appears to think it won't buttress Flynn's case...

Quote:
Former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice has called for the Trump administration to release transcripts of phone calls between Michael Flynn, her successor under President Trump, and then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...to-be-released
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:36 PM   #454
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Which rather compounds the problem of the missing 302's.
I'm not at all bothered by this invented "problem".

The prosecution provided original interview notes and the official 302. There's no apparent discrepancy between the two. Demanding some hypothetical draft work product is silly, and a never ending rabbit hole of distraction. I feel pretty confident that if the FBI said they found a 302 draft saved on January 28th at 3pm, but created at 10am the same day, this defense and our president would demand "the original 302 from 11am"!

Last edited by Beeyon; 22nd May 2020 at 12:38 PM.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:48 PM   #455
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/statu...90150384152576

Quote:
Reupping, be virtually every single person weighing in on Flynn seems to misunderstand this:

Schrodinger's Materiality: Bill Barr's DOJ Has an Active Filing Arguing Flynn's Lies Were Material
Article embedded in tweet.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/1...e-a-rock-star/

Excellent read, thanks!
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:49 PM   #456
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Demanding some hypothetical draft work product is silly
No. The original 302's are not "hypothetical draft". They are supposed to be the primary source of information about the interview. It's later edits which are unusual.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:59 PM   #457
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. The original 302's are not "hypothetical draft". They are supposed to be the primary source of information about the interview. It's later edits which are unusual.
To be clear, is the "original 302" supposed to be a draft or not?
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:16 PM   #458
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
To be clear, is the "original 302" supposed to be a draft or not?
The original 302 is an official document. It's part of the record of the FBI's investigation. First and foremost, it's supposed to be kept.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:20 PM   #459
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
To be clear, is the "original 302" supposed to be a draft or not?
The original 302 is an official document. It's part of the record of the FBI's investigation. First and foremost, it's supposed to be kept.
How does that differ from this?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...erview-302.pdf
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:31 PM   #460
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
We don't know how they differ, because as I said, they "lost" the original. Neither version filed with the court are original versions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 04:25 PM   #461
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,322
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
At least one person who has seen the transcript appears to think it won't buttress Flynn's case...







https://thehill.com/policy/national-...to-be-released
That pretty much sums it up. With the Trump adminstration controlling the flow of information and being totally uncooperative, they are only releasing information they believe fits their narrative. Trump has declassified very selectively.

Early on in the investigation there were several members of the Trump adminstration who were totally spooked by it.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

Last edited by a_unique_person; 22nd May 2020 at 04:28 PM.
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:01 PM   #462
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
The original 302 is an official document. It's part of the record of the FBI's investigation. First and foremost, it's supposed to be kept.
This is an oddly cagey answer. I asked you if the "original 302" was supposed to be a draft or not. You say it's an official document. But do you believe that a draft 302 could be an official documents? I hope not, so I am going to assume your "original 302" is not a draft 302. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We don't know how they differ, because as I said, they "lost" the original. Neither version filed with the court are original versions.
How do we know that the "first version" provided is not the original 302?

Last edited by Beeyon; 22nd May 2020 at 05:01 PM. Reason: quote attribution
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:08 PM   #463
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
With the Trump adminstration ... being totally uncooperative
That's quite unfair. They're cooperating quite a bit with Flynn and his defense team.

I personally am looking forward to Barr's summary of the Durham report. I expect some compelling excerpts like "[e]vidence of ... criminal offenses committed by ... Obama ... ."
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:19 PM   #464
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
This is an oddly cagey answer. I asked you if the "original 302" was supposed to be a draft or not. You say it's an official document. But do you believe that a draft 302 could be an official documents? I hope not, so I am going to assume your "original 302" is not a draft 302. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Submitted 302's aren't supposed to be "drafts" at all. The fact that it was labelled as a draft is another clue that it was edited when it wasn't supposed to be. The filing date is also weeks after the interview, when they're supposed to be filed within 5 days.

Quote:
How do we know that the "first version" provided is not the original 302?
Because recovered text messages show Strzok and Page discussed editing it, and Page even helped Strzok with the editing. Page wasn't there for the interview, she should have no part at all in drafting the 302.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:35 PM   #465
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,924
It’s so bizarre to watch this dialogue. Zigg has absolutely no knowledge on these subjects. You may as well talk with a parrot who mimics Hannity or Limbaugh. He’s an expert on DOJ rules and procedure now.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:45 PM   #466
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,079
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because recovered text messages show Strzok and Page discussed editing it, and Page even helped Strzok with the editing. Page wasn't there for the interview, she should have no part at all in drafting the 302.
Source?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:52 PM   #467
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Submitted 302's aren't supposed to be "drafts" at all. The fact that it was labelled as a draft is another clue that it was edited when it wasn't supposed to be. The filing date is also weeks after the interview, when they're supposed to be filed within 5 days.

Because recovered text messages show Strzok and Page discussed editing it, and Page even helped Strzok with the editing. Page wasn't there for the interview, she should have no part at all in drafting the 302.
This is conspiracy thinking.

The 302 was labeled draft, so... there must have been an earlier 302 submitted!

The 302 was submitted late, so... there must have been an earlier 302 submitted!

Someone helped the interviewing agent edit his report, so... there must have been an earlier 302 submitted!

The only things these are evidence of is 1) Strozk failed to follow policy regarding when 302s are submitted, and 2) there was a DRAFT 302 that he gave to Page at some point.

The only "original 302" I see here is the DRAFT he provided Page. No wonder you didn't answer my question forthrightly. You're demanding an intermediary work product despite having the initial notes and the final product. It's a silly, silly distraction.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 08:00 PM   #468
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Source?
Re: the edits, I think he is talking about part of the second Jensen disclosure:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...1592.189.1.pdf

(Feb 10 texts)

But this appears to be implicitly acknowledging that the "original 302" was a draft. I wonder when Bill Barr will be requiring the FBI to maintain every intermediary work product they produce? Any day now; that guy cares about Justice.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 08:08 PM   #469
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,162
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
This is conspiracy thinking.

The 302 was labeled draft, so... there must have been an earlier 302 submitted!
No. I'm saying there was an earlier 302 written. It probably wasn't submitted, but it should have been kept, because that's the only one written purely on the basis of the interview itself.

Quote:
The only things these are evidence of is 1) Strozk failed to follow policy regarding when 302s are submitted, and 2) there was a DRAFT 302 that he gave to Page at some point.
Strzok didn't write the original 302. The other agent did. Strzok then edited it, with Page's help, before submitting it.

Quote:
The only "original 302" I see here is the DRAFT he provided Page.
No. We have no idea what he provided Page. He didn't give her the original or the version that he submitted.

Quote:
No wonder you didn't answer my question forthrightly. You're demanding an intermediary work product despite having the initial notes and the final product. It's a silly, silly distraction.
You don't get it, do you?

How do you know Flynn lied? If you say because he pled guilty, go sit in the corner with a dunce cap. What the FBI relies on to determine that Flynn lied is the 302. There is nothing else. They have no actual recording of what he said. But the 302 is a flawed record under the best of circumstances. And these are particularly bad circumstances. Agents not involved in the interview are not supposed to edit 302's. The reason for this should be obvious.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 08:35 PM   #470
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
No. I'm saying there was an earlier 302 written. It probably wasn't submitted, but it should have been kept, because that's the only one written purely on the basis of the interview itself.
A 302 written but not submitted is... a draft. You have no evidence it was ever any more than that.

Also, this narrative excludes the actual interview notes. Those are even more "original" than a first draft, so you should love them. Of course I understand you not loving them, because of how they support the official 302 (Per Judge Sullivan), and thus undermine the relevance of the draft 302.

Quote:
Agents not involved in the interview are not supposed to edit 302's. The reason for this should be obvious.
Page was not an agent, and Strozk was, well, part of the interview

Strozk was the senior agent in the interview. Seems like he had his underling Pientka (the other agent present) draw up an initial draft for him to work off of, and then he had Page help him clean it up. That may be against FBI policy, but it's a basis for discipline not conspiracy. This is all a pitiful distraction because the court has both their actual interview notes and the final work product, and felt that the most original of documents supported the final work product.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 09:01 PM   #471
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. I'm saying there was an earlier 302 written. It probably wasn't submitted, but it should have been kept, because that's the only one written purely on the basis of the interview itself.
Especially considering the original 302 written by Pientka was written up and given to the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI on the day of Flynn's interview and the information contained within was enough to get the Attorney General involved two days later.



Quote:
Strzok didn't write the original 302. The other agent did.
Why would Strzok need to edit the 302 in a manner he describes as "not completely rewrite the thing so as to save ******** voice"? Why would he need to rewrite it at all, over three weeks later, if the original draft was good enough for the FBI's two most senior men and the acting Attorney General?

Last edited by Bogative; 22nd May 2020 at 09:12 PM.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 09:14 PM   #472
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Especially considering the original 302 written by Strzok and Pientka was written up and given to the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI on the day of Flynn's interview and the information contained within was enough to get the Attorney General involved two days later.
Do you have a source for this?

I haven't seen that in print, and I've seen material which contradicts the second part. Specifically, there is documentation of Acting AG Yates being shocked and bothered when Comey told her, January 24, that agents were on their way to interview Flynn. That suggests the AAG was gonna be "involved" very quickly, regardless of any 302.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 09:40 PM   #473
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Do you have a source for this?

I haven't seen that in print, and I've seen material which contradicts the second part. Specifically, there is documentation of Acting AG Yates being shocked and bothered when Comey told her, January 24, that agents were on their way to interview Flynn. That suggests the AAG was gonna be "involved" very quickly, regardless of any 302.
I was wrong about it being two days later and you are right about January 24. But my original point stands, why were they editing the 302 weeks after these three high-ranking officials saw and used the original to investigate Flynn?
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 10:51 PM   #474
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,207
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You don't get it, do you?

How do you know Flynn lied? If you say because he pled guilty, go sit in the corner with a dunce cap. What the FBI relies on to determine that Flynn lied is the 302. There is nothing else. They have no actual recording of what he said. But the 302 is a flawed record under the best of circumstances. And these are particularly bad circumstances. Agents not involved in the interview are not supposed to edit 302's. The reason for this should be obvious.
Flynn didn't plead guilty to the FBI. He pled guilty to the court, under oath. Once he did that, evidence is no longer required. Go sit in the corner if you are still talking about evidence.
Dunce cap at your discretion. I personally think those things make your hair look funny. Almost as funny as your argument.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 10:59 PM   #475
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Bogative
why were they editing the 302 weeks after these three high-ranking officials saw and used the original to investigate Flynn?
I don't know. It was flagrently against policy. But what is that delay actually evidence of?

And how much can it matter if the original interview notes from both Strozk and Pientka are available, and have been reviewed by the court as consistent with the final 302?

Seriously, this is conspiracy theory territory. You're extrapolating from a delay. Exactly what do you believe that delay is evidence of? How do you weigh that against the judge's conclusion?
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 03:04 AM   #476
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,079
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Re: the edits, I think he is talking about part of the second Jensen disclosure:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...1592.189.1.pdf

(Feb 10 texts)
Zig? Are these the texts to which you are referring? Is there anything else you want to source to back your claim?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 03:25 AM   #477
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,079
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
But my original point stands, why were they editing the 302 weeks after these three high-ranking officials saw and used the original to investigate Flynn?
Edits don’t have to be nefarious. Perhaps the formatting and spelling were utter crap. Fixing those doesn’t require being present at any interview and could keep a document from being cogent and readable. FBI agents are human, too. Jumping to conclusions with conspiratorial thinking isn’t necessarily warranted based on these out-of-context texts.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:17 AM   #478
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Seriously, this is conspiracy theory territory. You're extrapolating from a delay. Exactly what do you believe that delay is evidence of? How do you weigh that against the judge's conclusion?
There is much more to consider than just the delay.

Strzok, Page and Priestap's emails and texts discussing how they could interview Flynn and avoid admonishments or state them without cuing him that he was the target of the questioning, and questioning if there goal was to get him to lie or to get him fired.

Strzok not showing Flynn the transcript of his phone call during the interview.

Text messages between Page and Strzok showing clear bias against Trump, and then text messages where they discuss rewriting the 302.

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but these facts along with the FBI having no reason to interview Flynn about his phone call with Kislyak was enough for a US Attorney to recommend dropping the DOJ's case against Flynn.





Back to what I posted earlier about Comey, McCabe, Yates and the 302. Comey and McCabe were given the 302 the day of the interview and to Yates on the 26th, if not earlier.

Page 8 and 9 of this PDF.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:34 AM   #479
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How do you know Flynn lied?
Flynn admitted that he lied.

Quote:
If you say because he pled guilty, go sit in the corner with a dunce cap.
You say that as if Flynn merely said that word “guilty” and that was the end of it.

Flynn’s answers to the very specific questions the judge asked him repeatedly reaffirm that he lied. The transcript goes on for pages.

That aside, why do you think a dunce cap is necessary for someone who accepts an admission of lying as evidence of a lie?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:37 AM   #480
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
There is much more to consider than just the delay.

Strzok, Page and Priestap's emails and texts discussing how they could interview Flynn and avoid admonishments or state them without cuing him that he was the target of the questioning, and questioning if there goal was to get him to lie or to get him fired.

Strzok not showing Flynn the transcript of his phone call during the interview.

Text messages between Page and Strzok showing clear bias against Trump, and then text messages where they discuss rewriting the 302.

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but these facts along with the FBI having no reason to interview Flynn about his phone call with Kislyak was enough for a US Attorney to recommend dropping the DOJ's case against Flynn.





Back to what I posted earlier about Comey, McCabe, Yates and the 302. Comey and McCabe were given the 302 the day of the interview and to Yates on the 26th, if not earlier.

Page 8 and 9 of this PDF.
Flynn admitted that he lied.

What do you think happened in that interview that would somehow exonerate someone who repeatedly admitted to the crime of which he is accused?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.