|
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. |
1st June 2020, 11:22 PM | #761 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
Can anyone here tell me the process of a 302? They go, question someone, and write one up from memory?
|
1st June 2020, 11:36 PM | #762 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
Sullivan and the DoJ filed their briefs today.
Perhaps unsurprising, I find the DoJ brief rather uncompelling. The majority of it was written as if it was addressing the issue after a decision on the motion to dismiss, rather than regarding a writ of mandamus when the judge had yet denied the motion to dismiss. The DoJ acknowledges that:
Originally Posted by DoJ
Looking at Fokker, Sullivan looks very boxed in with regards to the final result, but I think there's a decent chance of him getting to probe around the edges a bit before he gets to that result. But the draw of the panel looks fair, and I won't be outraged if they don't let him proceed at all. |
1st June 2020, 11:42 PM | #763 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
A plea deal does not get overturned.
Regarding the diplomats being expelled and sanctions being different Even the special counsel’s report also distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures, stating that Executive Order 13757 “imposed sanctions on nine Russian individuals and entities,” but then noting that “the Obama Administration also expelled 35 Russian government officials and closed two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States.” Mueller’s team distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures by, for instance, stating that “on December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration announced that in response to Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election, it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities.” Also in the report “On December 29, 2016, as noted in Volume II, Section II.A.4, supra, the Obama Administration announced that it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities. A third time Mueller repeated this distinction, stating Flynn “spoke with the Russian government when the Obama Administration imposed sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.” Also shortly after Strzok and Pientka questioned Flynn, Flynn publicly refuted media reports that he had discussed sanctions with Russia. I had “a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign. ‘It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,’” Flynn stated. What were these "other measures?" As everyone knows and understood, even Mueller and their team, it was the diplomatic expulsions. Even Obama stated they were different. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt. Well before Mueller, and shortly after the FBI interview, Flynn stated they were different. So you'd have a hard time proving criminal intent to lie when in his mind they were different. |
1st June 2020, 11:45 PM | #764 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
I did say up at post #747: "I think a reasonable person would conclude outside the court room that he did make those requests in an earlier call." In life people come to conclusions without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure in your life you've concluded that someone did a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt in hand.
I also think that the evidence would be enough to come to a positive conclusion based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, as there is no counter evidence beyond Flynn's recent, self-contradicting, and self-interested testimony that he did not make the request. Counter evidence would be more appreciated than further sophistry. |
1st June 2020, 11:46 PM | #765 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
1st June 2020, 11:54 PM | #766 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
2nd June 2020, 12:02 AM | #767 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
None of which is relevant to the charging document. An expulsion is a sanction, and the charging document did not specify "sanction".
Quote:
"Your honor, when the defendant said 'no' to the question of 'did you know that John Doe was in possession of the drugs?', he did so thinking that 'drugs' meant coccaine rather than heroin! His statements after he found out about the investigation show his intent!" "Your honor, when the defendant said 'no' to the question of 'did you know that John Doe was planning to kill people in a terrorist attack?', he did so thinking that 'people' meant Floridians rather than Californians! His statements after he found out about the investigation show his intent!" |
2nd June 2020, 12:07 AM | #768 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
The transcript between Kislyak and Flynn is evidence. It may not be proof beyond all doubt, but it is evidence. Evidence doesn't cease being evidence because it's not incontrovertible.
At this point you're basically arguing that the smoking gun in someone's hand after a murder is not evidence. "Someone else could have shoved the gun in his hand and pulled the trigger!" You're engaging in sophistry, not skepticism. |
2nd June 2020, 12:17 AM | #769 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
2nd June 2020, 12:20 AM | #770 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
Probably just ask the DoJ a few questions about their arguments and the grant the motion to dismiss unless something unabashedly abusive comes out.
I imagine two of the questions will be: "Why has the government not withdrawn its previous pleadings asserting the materiality of Flynn's statements?" "How does this dismissal with prejudice affect Flynn's March 2017 False statements to the DoJ regarding his work for Turkey which he stipulated to in the plea deal?" The later is especially important as it plays directly to the DoJ's argument of why rule 48 exists, solely to prevent prosecutorial game playing. If the dismissal with prejudice didn't cover that stuff, Flynn could remain on the hook. |
2nd June 2020, 12:23 AM | #771 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
|
2nd June 2020, 12:24 AM | #772 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
[quote=Beeyon;13110489]None of which is relevant to the charging document. An expulsion is a sanction, and the charging document did not specify "sanction".
/QUOTE] The charging document does say sanctions and the statement of offence lists the specific executive order of the sanctions, and contemporaneous news articles make the distinction, and the Mueller report made the distinction, Obama made the distinction, and therefore Flynn made the distinction. It looks pretty lonely on that island. |
2nd June 2020, 12:34 AM | #773 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
[quote=Beeyon;13110489].
That statement is from mid February. So quite awhile after the White House became aware of the investigation and Flynn plausibly could've gotten his hands on the transcript, he started making a semantic argument. That's an argument only a mother could love. /QUOTE] In case you haven't noticed, what you find "plausible" doesn't mean anything. There is ZERO evidence for this claim. You just made it up. |
2nd June 2020, 12:47 AM | #774 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
[quote=Beeyon;13110489]
That statement is from mid February. So quite awhile after the White House became aware of the investigation and Flynn plausibly could've gotten his hands on the transcript, he started making a semantic argument. That's an argument only a mother could love. /QUOTE] It's also quite a while after the distinction was made in the press and by Obama. Are you saying that was fake news? Tell me what were those "other things" besides the sanctions? Because if you can't come up with anything........ |
2nd June 2020, 01:42 AM | #775 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
2nd June 2020, 07:09 AM | #776 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
2nd June 2020, 01:58 PM | #777 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
I know you have no issue with the 302. It's been stated here that the 302's match the hadwritten notes of the agents present, when in fact they do not. "According to the FD-302, the agents asked petitioner whether he recalled a conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had taken the incoming administration’s position into account when responding to the sanctions; petitioner stated that he did not recall such a conversation. Id. The agents’ handwritten notes do not reflect that question being asked or petitioner’s response. See Doc. 198-13, at 2-8. The final FD-302 also reports that petitioner incorrectly stated that, in earlier calls with Kislyak, petitioner had not made any request about voting on a UN Resolution in a certain manner or slowing down the vote. Doc. 198-7, at 5. Petitioner indicated that the conversation, which took place on a day when he was calling many other countries, was “along the lines of where do you stand[] and what’s your position.” Id. The final FD-302 also states that petitioner was asked whether Kislyak described any Russian response to his request and said that Kislyak had not, id., although the agents’ handwritten notes do not reflect petitioner being asked that question or giving that response. See Doc. 198-13, at 2-8." In light of Lisa Page's unorthodox editing involvment after the fact, and well after the usual 5 day window of typical 302 proceedure, there is sufficient doubt about whether the 302 accurately reflects the interview of Flynn. |
2nd June 2020, 02:14 PM | #778 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
I feel confident that I've made my case to anyone interested, and given the downright grotesque and convenient standards of evidence you're working with (you're beyond convinced that a few isolated documents define how a later charging document uses a broad term, while simultaneously denying the unambiguous and uncontested implications of the Flynn-Kislyak transcript with regards to the UN votes), I think there's no point allowing you to distract this conversation further on this point.
So let's say you're right. That circa early 2017, when someone asked about "sanctions", Flynn assumed they meant only the executive order sanctions. Did Flynn accurately represent the facts to the FBI?
Originally Posted by 302
Originally Posted by Transcript, December 29 2016
I did not make any claim. I'm starting to think that you're arguing in bad faith here by suggesting that I claimed this happened. Anyone can see from the quote that I was noting that this was a possibility, and that this possibility weakened the argument. That possibility is not irrelevant or meaningless. How do we know this? Because if Flynn had been making those statements prior to the interview, it would improve the quality of those statements as evidence. Your blanket refusal to address this point doesn't make it any less true. I have no idea what "other things" you're referencing. Tighten it up man. You're becoming incomprehensible. |
2nd June 2020, 02:25 PM | #779 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
To be clear, you're citing the defense's earlier motion to dismiss. I think an honest person would've made that clear.
The judge reviewed this question and disagreed.
Originally Posted by MEMORANDUM OPINION, December 16 2019
|
2nd June 2020, 02:28 PM | #780 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
“on December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration announced that in response to Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election, it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities.”"
What "other measure?" “On December 29, 2016, as noted in Volume II, Section II.A.4, supra, the Obama Administration announced that it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities. A third time Mueller repeated this distinction, stating Flynn “spoke with the Russian government when the Obama Administration imposed sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.” What other measures? You can hand wave away news articles, Obama, Flynn, Mueller, making the distinction all you want, it does not make the distinction any less relevant because you refuse to acknowledge it's existence. If there was no distinction you would list these "other measures." Since you insist you are right and everyone else is wrong. |
2nd June 2020, 02:35 PM | #781 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
No I'm citing the Justice Departments recent filing to the appelate court.
If you are claiming the notes DO reflect those questions and answers, cite the notes verbatum for the relevant questions and answers. If you can't show the notes reflecting those questions and answers, then Sullivan had a bad day, because it would clearly mean the notes don't match the 302. |
2nd June 2020, 02:48 PM | #782 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
It is bold, but transparent, that you would accuse me of hand-waving away material when you openly refuse to address the points I make.
I indicated that I was willing to proceed in the conversation assuming you were correct, and yet you wish to continue discussing this point. I think that unambiguously demonstrates that you do not want to honestly discuss the issue, but I'll ask again: So let's say you're right. That circa early 2017, when someone asked about "sanctions", Flynn assumed they meant only the executive order sanctions. Did Flynn accurately represent the facts to the FBI?
Originally Posted by 302
Originally Posted by Transcript, December 29 2016
---- You're correct re: the citation. Mea culpa. Also, the burden is on you to establish that the notes do not do what the judge says they do. Sorry. |
2nd June 2020, 05:04 PM | #783 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
You want me to point to the notes and say "see they didn't ask this question or response?"
Ok, https://www.scribd.com/document/4330...e-Re-Flynn-MTC Exhibits 1 and 2 Nowhere do they ask Flynn whether he recalled a conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had taken the incoming administration’s position into account when responding to sanctions or expulsions. Nowhere is Flynn asked whether Kislyak described any Russian response to his request about the U.N. vote on Israel. Certainly that is a material change from what the 302's state, regardless of Sullivan's conclusion. |
2nd June 2020, 05:41 PM | #784 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
I can't read the notes, do you have a source with a transcribed version?
It's interesting that you use the word "change." To me, a change is "Flynn said X" to "Flynn said Y." The failure of the notes to document every aspect isn't a change per se, though it could definitely be an issue. Do you have any case where the underlying notes omitting a feature ruined their evidentiary value? Sullivan said that the notes "track" the 302, which indicates a general consistency rather than a line by line correlation. It's not clear that line by line consistency is necessary. Further, Pientka has said that the 302 is accurate, which further buttresses their evidentiary value. I'm still inclined to believe a judge's determination as to a "a material change" rather than an anonymous poster or a defendant's advocate. I don't think an omission alone is enough to show that he messed up. |
3rd June 2020, 01:14 PM | #785 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
The DoJ is unleashing the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate non-drug related crimes associated with the Floyd protests.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Protests.html Unconventional surveillance for the commoners, JusticeTM for the elites. |
3rd June 2020, 01:18 PM | #786 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
3rd June 2020, 03:00 PM | #787 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
Says the person who in this thread suggested that Barr lacked the political capital to even begin reforms to protect others from the DoJ/FBI techniques used against Flynn.
He's spending capital mighty freely on other things. To deny that this reveals his preferences is absurd. |
3rd June 2020, 03:27 PM | #788 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,598
|
|
4th June 2020, 10:11 AM | #789 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
Originally Posted by Washington Post
|
4th June 2020, 06:18 PM | #790 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
4th June 2020, 06:51 PM | #791 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
That's an interesting possibility.
Normally nothing happens at the district court during the appeal because the district court rendered a final opinion. Obviously not the case here. A brief Google search didn't produce any conclusive results, but I did see a couple cases referencing a defendant asking for a stay during the higher court's consideration of the writ of mandamus. That would kinda suggest that the show will go on if Flynn didn't ask Sullivan for a stay (and it appears he did not). The circuit court's order doesn't mention a stay explicitly. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...0-5143LDSN.pdf I have no confidence either way. Any opinion from a lawyer would be welcome. |
4th June 2020, 07:11 PM | #792 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
4th June 2020, 11:44 PM | #793 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
|
5th June 2020, 03:15 AM | #794 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
You are 99.9% wrong. You are mixing terms like "final decision" when you are talking about "final judgement."
Sullivan's appointment of an amicus is something "final" that can't be remedied at the district level. In going back and reading your initial respone, I notice you seem to think that an appeals court only gets involved after a final judgement at trial. That is not the case at all. "Normally nothing happens at the district court during the appeal because the district court rendered a final opinion." This is not an appeal of final judgement. The Writ of Mandamus is petitioning the appeals court because there is only one legal action to do at this point. The only controversy before the court was created by Sullivan in appointing the amicus. Which is why not only will he lose, but he will probably get pulled from the case. 'Please your honors, we really think that these issues raised should not go unanswered..." And this statement is exactly why. In the U.S. legal system, the judge is an impatial arbitrator, not an advocate. Nor does he have the power to prosecute. Nor are amicus briefs allowed anywhere in criminal district cases. Sullivan knows the latter and we know he knows because he has denied them several times in this case before. |
5th June 2020, 09:48 PM | #795 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
I'm not sure why you'd think that, given that my actual post says:
It's still obvious. We'll see. I think there's a good chance Sullivan would lose a typical appeal if he tried to sentence Flynn despite the government's motion to dismiss. But the writ of mandamus has so much higher a bar I think there's a good chance they allow him to reach a final opinion/decision/judgement/work product. It also seems extremely unlikely that he'll get pulled. You should note that this Fokker case that keeps getting cited also included a request for a judge reassignment, and the circuit court explicitly declined to reassign that guy despite "the district court volunteer[ing] opinions about Fokker’s conduct." Sullivan's denial of amicus briefs actually undermines your argument. If amicus briefs were absolutely forbidden from criminal cases, then why would anyone ever request to file them? Your unqualified assertion that amicus briefs are never allowed in criminal district court cases appears to be blatantly false according to the Sullivan brief.
Originally Posted by Sullivan Brief
|
6th June 2020, 07:19 AM | #796 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
A December 20, 2017, Minute Order by Sullivan denies such a motion with a detailed explanation: MINUTE ORDER. This Court has received several motions to intervene/file an amicus brief along with letters in support from a private individual who is neither a party to this case nor counsel of record for any party. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases. The Court recognizes that the movant sincerely believes that he has information to share that bears on this case, and that, understandably, he wishes to be heard. Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option. The docket is the record of official proceedings related to criminal charges brought by the United States against an individual who has pled guilty to a criminal offense. For the benefit of the parties in this case and the public, the docket must be maintained in an orderly fashion and in accordance with court rules. The movant states that he disagrees with the similar Minute Order issued by Judge Berman Jackson in Criminal Case Number 17-201, but the contrary legal authority on which he relies is neither persuasive nor applicable. Therefore, the Clerk is directed not to docket additional filings submitted by the would-be intervenor. If the individual seeks relief from this Court's rulings, he must appeal the rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/20/2017. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/20/2017). [Emphasis added.] Did Sullivan lie when he said, "The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases" Or was it because the briefs were in Support of Flynn? As opposed to his current stunt? |
6th June 2020, 07:33 AM | #797 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
What is and was obvious was that you thought the amicus breif was still happening on the 10th because Sullivan hadn't rendered a "final opinion." For you to think the amicus would happen on the 10th with a Writ of Mandamus pending leaves your words to be interpreted in no other way than which I did. "Normally nothing happens at the district court during the appeal because the district court rendered a final opinion. Obviously not the case here." Yes, it is the case here, for exactly the reasons I've stated. This is not an appeal, it is a writ. And nothing can happen at the district level until it is resolved. It is perfectly "normal" other than the reasons for the writ, the procedure is normal. |
6th June 2020, 09:44 AM | #798 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 462
|
No, because the FRCP do not literally set forth procedures for amicus briefs.
--- You appear to be asserting that district court proceedings are frozen during the consideration of the writ of mandamus. I am not extremely confident that you are wrong, but I strongly suspect it. If the filing of a writ of mandamus necessarily meant that cases were stayed, one might expect such a rule to be true across all our court systems. Instead at least Texas, Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, and South Carolina courts do not stay cases based on writs of mandamus alone.
Originally Posted by Smith Law Group
Originally Posted by Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21
Originally Posted by Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Originally Posted by Rule 121.Mandamus and Prohibition
Originally Posted by Plum Creek Development v. the City of Conway, South Carolina Supreme Court
And I also found a judge's order from a district court in the eastern district of Michigan saying...
Originally Posted by Order, USDC EDM
So, I do not understand why you are so confident that a motion for writ of mandamus causes an automatic stay in the lower court's proceedings. We shall see on the tenth. |
6th June 2020, 11:11 AM | #799 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
[quote=Beeyon;13116081]No, because the FRCP do not literally set forth procedures for amicus briefs.
--- /QUOTE] They don't set forth proceedures because as Sullivan once said. "The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases" "Does not provide" "Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option. " He turned on a dime, and is talking out of both sides of his mouth to suit his agenda. "individual who has pled guilty to a criminal offense. For the benefit of the parties in this case and the public, the docket must be maintained in an orderly fashion and in accordance with court rules. " What rules was he referring to? We all know the answer. |
6th June 2020, 11:23 AM | #800 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 756
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|