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 23rd May 2020, 09:42 AM   #481
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
There is much more to consider than just the delay. ...
None of the identified elements are relevant to the existence of an "original 302." Your comment was an offshoot of another conversation, and my response was mostly directed towards that, hence the focus on the delay. But we can talk about the wider situation if you like.

Quote:
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.
Just as a side note, I think the Priestrap notes are hardly damning. They ask, not conclude the goal. And they also say "protect our institution by not playing games." If you're going to take the intent of the notes seriously, you need to take that seriously too.

Quote:
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.
This is just wrong. The NSA lied to the VP about communications with a Russian agent. In the world of national security, that is a VERY good reason to go ask questions. Repeat after me: "the FBI doesn't just investigate crimes, they also have a counter-intelligence function."



Quote:
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.
Thanks for the cite! That does suggest the existence of a draft, but doesn't actually say they handed it over to anyone.

Originally Posted by Bogative's Link
And they interviewed him completely, went through it all, did not show him the transcript, IIIIIIII or transcripts, and then came back and drafted a 302 and reported to me and the Deputy Director
So there's no reason to believe this is final work product. I know that you guys like the phrase "original 302", but it's starting to conclusively look like "initial draft 302" is a lot more honest way to describe it.
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, 09:53 AM   #482
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That aside, why do you think a dunce cap is necessary for someone who accepts an admission of lying as evidence of a lie?
I actually think he has a point here. Maybe it'd be better to here it described from someone not on Trumps side.

People plea guilty sometimes when they don't do it. The kid in Alvarez v. Brownsville plead to assaulting a police officer despite him not touching the guy. When a prosecutor is coming at you, it can be really scary, and the plea bargain can be very tempting. Flynn probably was also motivated for the sake of his kid. It's at least enough to be cautious about giving full weight to a plea in the court of public opinion.

That said, there is evidence of Flynn lying: the official 302, which the judge has determined to be supported by the original interview notes. That's been enough to convict plenty of other people for this crime, it shouldn't be any different for a friend of the president.

Bill Barr could have tied the Flynn motion to the institution of a number of policies that are within his power like "We won't prosecute 1001", or "We require the FBI to record all interviews", or "We will provide all Brady material prior to plea bargains", but he didn't. This wasn't a matter of justice, it was a matter of getting Trump's buddy off the hook.
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, 10:00 AM   #483
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
I actually think he has a point here. Maybe it'd be better to here it described from someone not on Trumps side.

People plea guilty sometimes when they don't do it. The kid in Alvarez v. Brownsville plead to assaulting a police officer despite him not touching the guy. When a prosecutor is coming at you, it can be really scary, and the plea bargain can be very tempting. Flynn probably was also motivated for the sake of his kid. It's at least enough to be cautious about giving full weight to a plea in the court of public opinion.
I don’t dispute any of that.

But there’s a big difference between being cautious and throwing out the guilty please altogether and claiming that it isn’t evidence of anything, as Zig has repeatedly done here.

Even in the case you cited above, the fact that the defendant admitted to the crime still counts as evidence that he committed the crime. It just so happens that there was other, far more persuasive evidence that he didn’t commit the crime.

No such evidence exists in the Flynn case. Just innuendo and conspiracy theories.

ETA: And there’s also the context of socioeconomic status to be considered. A wealthy and powerful middle-aged white guy isn’t going to have the same risk of being railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor as a poor minority teenager.

Last edited by johnny karate; 23rd May 2020 at 10:08 AM.
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, 10:05 AM   #484
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,155
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
You can call it a conspiracy theory if you like
Thanks!
__________________
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 23rd May 2020, 10:14 AM   #485
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,155
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Just as a side note, I think the Priestrap notes are hardly damning. They ask, not conclude the goal. And they also say "protect our institution by not playing games." If you're going to take the intent of the notes seriously, you need to take that seriously too.
It's also worth pointing out - again - that what is being pointed to as a sure sign of nefarious intent and rules being stretched or broken is 100% legal and, in fact, standard operating procedure.

It's perfectly legitimate to criticise this tactic, but pointing to it and going "this perfectly normal thing is evidence that this situation is extraordinary" is just silly.
__________________
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 23rd May 2020, 12:41 PM   #486
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,083
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That aside, why do you think a dunce cap is necessary for someone who accepts an admission of lying as evidence of a lie?
Because the conservative media echo chamber tells him so.

ETA: Maybe that's more accurately the conspiracy theory echo chamber. There appears to be quite a bit of overlap since 2008 or so.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 23rd May 2020 at 12:47 PM.
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, 03:16 PM   #487
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Just as a side note, I think the Priestrap notes are hardly damning. They ask, not conclude the goal. And they also say "protect our institution by not playing games." If you're going to take the intent of the notes seriously, you need to take that seriously too.
I take them seriously, especially the part where he asks if the goal is to get Flynn fired. To me that shows nefarious intent, it's not the FBI's mission to get a political appointee fired.



Quote:
This is just wrong. The NSA lied to the VP about communications with a Russian agent. In the world of national security, that is a VERY good reason to go ask questions. Repeat after me: "the FBI doesn't just investigate crimes, they also have a counter-intelligence function."
Jeffrey Jensen disagrees with you, why should I believe you over him?





Quote:
Thanks for the cite! That does suggest the existence of a draft, but doesn't actually say they handed it over to anyone.
Correct, but the content of the draft was good enough for Comey to use to brief the White House Counsel with, why wasn't it good enough to file four days later, instead of three weeks later, as required by the FBI? I'm not buying the claim of poor grammar and spelling, Strzok's text message suggests it was more than that.


Quote:
So there's no reason to believe this is final work product. I know that you guys like the phrase "original 302", but it's starting to conclusively look like "initial draft 302" is a lot more honest way to describe it.
We may find out soon enough now that Wray and Jensen are investigating what happened in the FBI's investigation into 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 23rd May 2020, 04:20 PM   #488
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I take them seriously, especially the part where he asks if the goal is to get Flynn fired. To me that shows nefarious intent, it's not the FBI's mission to get a political appointee fired.
So how do you reconcile them? How can they be simultaneously worried about doing things by the book and also improperly gunning for a political appointee?

Quote:
Jeffrey Jensen disagrees with you, why should I believe you over him?
Because Jensen is working on behalf of Barr and Barr is plainly corrupt based on this incident alone.

If the FBI failing to record interviews is a problem, Barr can write a memo and end that.

If the DoJ charging people based on 1001 is a problem, Barr can write a memo and end that.

If the DoJ not giving people Brady material prior to plea bargains is a problem, Barr can write a memo and end that.

Instead he intervened in one case involving a presidential favorite. He is not addressing the supposed underlying issues. His failure to act in the interest of Justice for everyone rather than juat the president's friends demonstrates that he and the political appointees implementing his will are not credible or interested in justice.

Quote:
Correct, but the content of the draft was good enough for Comey to use to brief the White House Counsel with, why wasn't it good enough to file four days later, instead of three weeks later, as required by the FBI? I'm not buying the claim of poor grammar and spelling, Strzok's text message suggests it was more than that.
Do you believe the FBI has to maintain all intermediate work product, or just the ones involving Flynn?

If the FBI not keeping intermediate work products is a problem, Barr can write a memo and end that.

Edit:

What do you mean the contents of the draft? Your document says the agented "reported" on the interview (that probably means oral reporting), and then Yates talked to the WH counsel. Nowhere in there is the draft used for anything. At the the point of Yates talk with the WH counsel, they hadn't even violated any policy because they had 2 more days to turn in the 302!

Quote:
We may find out soon enough now that Wray and Jensen are investigating what happened in the FBI's investigation into Flynn.
It's completely implausible that the Jensen disclosures weren't tied to some internal analysis, and that was conspicuously not released. I'd be happy to see their reports even if they (Jensen, at least) are biased actors, but I suspect we'll never see anything from this administration.

Last edited by Beeyon; 23rd May 2020 at 04:26 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 24th May 2020, 03:09 PM   #489
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
So how do you reconcile them? How can they be simultaneously worried about doing things by the book and also improperly gunning for a political appointee?
They had discussed two different elements of the upcoming interview, one of which was potential violations of the Logan Act. Considering the history of that act, trying to catch Flynn violating would be considered "playing games" that the institution would need to be protected from.


Quote:
Because Jensen is working on behalf of Barr and Barr is plainly corrupt based on this incident alone.
Jensen is willing to subvert justice because of who he is working for? That's what you described earlier as conspiratorial thinking.


Quote:
Instead he intervened in one case involving a presidential favorite. He is not addressing the supposed underlying issues. His failure to act in the interest of Justice for everyone rather than juat the president's friends demonstrates that he and the political appointees implementing his will are not credible or interested in justice.
Do they not deserve justice because they are friends with the president? The investigation has already outed one "low-level" (as the NYT puts it) FBI lawyer for intentionally leaving out information to deceive the FISC. A separate IG report has found 17 instances of inaccuracies and omissions by the FBI regarding Trump's friends. That doesn't include the FBI agents and DOJ officials that were sent down the road during the SCO investigation. It would be an injustice if Barr wasn't investigating.


Quote:
What do you mean the contents of the draft? Your document says the agented "reported" on the interview (that probably means oral reporting), and then Yates talked to the WH counsel. Nowhere in there is the draft used for anything. At the the point of Yates talk with the WH counsel, they hadn't even violated any policy because they had 2 more days to turn in the 302!
It's possible they did not use the draft document and only used their memory. The FBI Director, acting AG and an official from the National Security Division using memory only while talking to the White House Counsel about a counterintelligence investigation into the sitting National Security Advisor is counter intuitive, but so is the idea of an FBI Director setting up an ambush interview of the same NSA and that happened. It appears Comey doesn't mind going a little unorthodox when it comes to Trump's friends.
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 24th May 2020, 05:34 PM   #490
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
They had discussed two different elements of the upcoming interview, one of which was potential violations of the Logan Act. Considering the history of that act, trying to catch Flynn violating would be considered "playing games" that the institution would need to be protected from.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. It sounds like you think "playing games" was some disconnected note. Have you seen it?

Originally Posted by Priestrap notes
If weíre seen as playing games, WH will be furious

Protect our institution by not playing games
That's an open admonition to do things by the book. Why are you giving that no weight when you interpret "What's urgent? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" as definitive evidence of an intent to nail him?

Quote:
Jensen is willing to subvert justice because of who he is working for? That's what you described earlier as conspiratorial thinking.
I note that you have no response to the evidence of Barr's selective justice, and instead hide behind Jensen role. I don't believe we actually saw any of the Jensen work product, and instead only got the letter from Shea providing the materials identified by Jensen. So, I'm guessing you're really saying that since Shea (a US Attorney) decided to provide the Jensen disclosure material, that his independent decision carries weight?

Well guess what, Barry has claimed the decision to move to dismiss the Flynn charges was his.

Quote:
Interviewer: Just to be clear, you said this was your decision.

Barr: Uh-huh.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorne...ns-transcript/

Once Barr decided to do this, everyone else's actions in support of it (including turning over the materials necessary to justify Barr'a "rationale") was just following orders.

Agents of a Attorney General pushing selective justice should be suspect.

Quote:
Do they not deserve justice because they are friends with the president? The investigation has already outed one "low-level" (as the NYT puts it) FBI lawyer for intentionally leaving out information to deceive the FISC. A separate IG report has found 17 instances of inaccuracies and omissions by the FBI regarding Trump's friends. That doesn't include the FBI agents and DOJ officials that were sent down the road during the SCO investigation. It would be an injustice if Barr wasn't investigating.
By all means, friends of the president deserve justice. I can agree with that. Can you agree that everyone deserves the same justice?

Assuming you do, why isn't Barr taking steps to reform the system to stop another Flynn?

- Record Interviews
- Brady before Plea deals
- Define limited scope to materiality under 1001
- Keep all intermediate work products

Seriously man, I don't give a crap about Flynn. I care about ordinary people who don't get the political passes that people like Flynn and Clinton get. When we lie to the FBI or mishandle classified information our lives get ruined. This isn't a Red versus Blue issue, but an Elite vs. Ordinary issue the elites have convinced everyone to play on their side.

My preferred outcome for the Flynn mess, ranked:

1. Barr changes DoJ/FBI policy, and retroactively applies the changes to Flynn and other defendants/convicts.
2. Flynn gets nailed by a cruel system.
3. Flynn walks, and the cruel system is unchanged.

2 is superior to 3 because after enough of the Elite get maimed by the teeth of the law, the law will get changed. Imperfect justice evenly applied is superior to perfect justice selectively applied.


Quote:
It's possible they did not use the draft document and only used their memory. The FBI Director, acting AG and an official from the National Security Division using memory only while talking to the White House Counsel about a counterintelligence investigation into the sitting National Security Advisor is counter intuitive, but so is the idea of an FBI Director setting up an ambush interview of the same NSA and that happened. It appears Comey doesn't mind going a little unorthodox when it comes to Trump's friends.
There is another possibility that they took their own notes of the debriefing and used them in their talk with the WHC.
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 24th May 2020, 05:40 PM   #491
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,866
Trump and Barr are doing their best to turn the DOJ into Trump's storm-troopers.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 24th May 2020, 06:26 PM   #492
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Assuming you do, why isn't Barr taking steps to reform the system to stop another Flynn?

- Record Interviews
- Brady before Plea deals
- Define limited scope to materiality under 1001
- Keep all intermediate work products
How do you know he isn't?

The DOJ and FBI are vast bureaucracies. There are a lot of people there with very vested interests in doing things the same way they've been doing them. There are changes which Barr might literally have the power to make, but which on a practical level would be very difficult to implement because of resistance within those organizations. I'd like to see these changes made, but realistically there's a limit to how much reform any head of a department can do, especially when under constant fire from outside critics.
__________________
"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 24th May 2020, 06:29 PM   #493
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,278
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Trump and Barr are doing their best to turn the DOJ into Trump's storm-troopers.
Storm Troopers? They're almost comically inept As for the ultimate desire of this 'Himmler' and his 'Leader', I'd go as far as to suggest Gestapo.
Lurch 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 24th May 2020, 06:58 PM   #494
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How do you know he isn't?

The DOJ and FBI are vast bureaucracies. There are a lot of people there with very vested interests in doing things the same way they've been doing them. There are changes which Barr might literally have the power to make, but which on a practical level would be very difficult to implement because of resistance within those organizations. I'd like to see these changes made, but realistically there's a limit to how much reform any head of a department can do, especially when under constant fire from outside critics.
So you think there's a chance that Barr wants to reform the DoJ, but didn't release any indication of those reforms in conjunction with the Flynn dismissal because they wouldn't be perfectly implemented immediately?

Would you be interested in buying a bridge in New york?
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 24th May 2020, 08:25 PM   #495
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
So you think there's a chance that Barr wants to reform the DoJ, but didn't release any indication of those reforms in conjunction with the Flynn dismissal because they wouldn't be perfectly implemented immediately?
I'm saying the people in charge often can't do what they want to do. We don't know what he wants to do, let alone what he's actually doing, and they need not be the same. Changing FBI policy on something like this would take a fair amount of political capital within the DOJ, and it may not be at the top of his priority list.
__________________
"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 24th May 2020, 08:31 PM   #496
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Also in the news this weekend: Judge Sullivan has hired himself a lawyer to help with the appeals court order for him to explain himself. His response still must be from him, though, even if he has help drafting it.
__________________
"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 24th May 2020, 08:44 PM   #497
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm saying the people in charge often can't do what they want to do. We don't know what he wants to do, let alone what he's actually doing, and they need not be the same. Changing FBI policy on something like this would take a fair amount of political capital within the DOJ, and it may not be at the top of his priority list.
The amount of investigations Barr has ordered into the FBI suggests otherwise.
We have an ongoing report about the problems with FISA.

And yet Barr has pushed the GOP hard not to reform the process at this time, even though Trump waited to sign the extension of the bill for a while.

All signs point to Barr being very happy with how the FBI deals with investigations - unless they affect someone on his team.
__________________
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 24th May 2020, 09:07 PM   #498
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Also in the news this weekend: Judge Sullivan has hired himself a lawyer to help with the appeals court order for him to explain himself. His response still must be from him, though, even if he has help drafting it.
I see others suggesting that this a strange and thus dubious action of Sullivan's (not to imply Ziggurat is engaged in such doubt mongering), but that appears to be false.

Originally Posted by SCotUS in Kerr v. US District Courts
Our treatment of mandamus within the federal court system as an extraordinary remedy is not without good reason. As we have recognized before, mandamus actions such as the one involved in the instant case "have the unfortunate consequence of making the [district court] judge a litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel
.
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 24th May 2020, 09:18 PM   #499
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm saying the people in charge often can't do what they want to do. We don't know what he wants to do, let alone what he's actually doing, and they need not be the same. Changing FBI policy on something like this would take a fair amount of political capital within the DOJ, and it may not be at the top of his priority list.
None of this would prevent Barr from making known his intentions or desires to see these reforms implemented.

But he hasnít made them known because they donít exist.

Just like the conservatives who lament the alleged injustice of what has happened to Flynn, Barr doesnít give a ratís ass about reform. He just wants to protect a Trump crony from the system heís perfectly content to sic on ordinary Americans.
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 25th May 2020, 10:49 PM   #500
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,626
Barr and Trump are putting all efforts into investigating the possible abuses of the Obama administration as it pertains to Trump, claiming they are doing it out of a righteous principle.

You can bet your ass that, should Trump lose in November, the same people are going to insist that the next President cannot possibly investigate what they did in the last four years - because that would violate a righteous principle.
__________________
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 25th May 2020, 11:10 PM   #501
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,295
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Barr and Trump are putting all efforts into investigating the possible abuses of the Obama administration as it pertains to Trump, claiming they are doing it out of a righteous principle.

You can bet your ass that, should Trump lose in November, the same people are going to insist that the next President cannot possibly investigate what they did in the last four years - because that would violate a righteous principle.

My emphasis
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 Yesterday, 07:06 AM   #502
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,866
Trumpanzees don't see rules and laws as applying equally to all people. To them, Trump and his friends are special people that laws don't apply to. Their cognitive dissonance on this, though, has them convinced that the laws are being applied illegally and there must be a conspiracy to take down Trump and his friends. They have to believe this because they refuse to admit to themselves and others that they believe their cult leaders are above the law.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 Yesterday, 09:08 AM   #503
TahiniBinShawarma
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post


Do you believe the FBI has to maintain all intermediate work product, or just the ones involving Flynn?
The Judge seemed to think the "drafted" 302 was relevant.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Yesterday, 09:11 AM   #504
TahiniBinShawarma
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post

Well guess what, Barry has claimed the decision to move to dismiss the Flynn charges was his.
Well of course it's his, he's the Attorney General, but he did it on the recommendation of Jensen, which you conveniently left out.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Yesterday, 11:56 AM   #505
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The Judge seemed to think the "drafted" 302 was relevant.
Source? The judge also reviewed the original notes and the final 302 and found there to be no discrepancy (See the December 16 opinion), so I'm curious how "relevant t" he found this.

Quote:
Well of course it's his, he's the Attorney General, but he did it on the recommendation of Jensen, which you conveniently left out.
Do you really think the AG makes all of the DoJ's prosecutorial decisions?

And we have no idea what Jensen said. Barr hasn't released the report.
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 Yesterday, 01:49 PM   #506
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Also in the news this weekend: Judge Sullivan has hired himself a lawyer to help with the appeals court order for him to explain himself. His response still must be from him, though, even if he has help drafting it.
Man, I hope we see the original response and not some edited crap that is prepared days later with the help of people who weren't even there when he made the decision.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; Yesterday at 01:50 PM.
Dr. Keith 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 Yesterday, 02:00 PM   #507
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Man, I hope we see the original response and not some edited crap that is prepared days later with the help of people who weren't even there when he made the decision.
That's an incredibly stupid comparison. Nothing about Sullivan's response depends on his memory of unrecorded events. Do you not get why that matters to a 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 Yesterday, 02:08 PM   #508
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,083
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's an incredibly stupid comparison. Nothing about Sullivan's response depends on his memory of unrecorded events. Do you not get why that matters to a 302?
Do you get why edits to a document are not necessarily nefarious, or are we just assuming they must be?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís 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 Yesterday, 04:41 PM   #509
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you get why edits to a document are not necessarily nefarious, or are we just assuming they must be?
They don't have to be nefarious in order to be unreliable. And the further away in time they are from the event, the less reliable they are.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 04:49 PM   #510
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They don't have to be nefarious in order to be unreliable. And the further away in time they are from the event, the less reliable they are.
But when the final 302 matches the contemporaneous interview notes (As in this case per Sullivan) there's no reason to think the final 302 is unreliable other than wishful thinking.
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 Yesterday, 04:50 PM   #511
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,866
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
But when the final 302 matches the contemporaneous interview notes (As in this case per Sullivan) there's no reason to think the final 302 is unreliable other than wishful thinking.
There are other reasons, like blind partisanship, cult following, and conspiracy theory.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 Yesterday, 04:51 PM   #512
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you get why edits to a document are not necessarily nefarious, or are we just assuming they must be?
This is giving too much credit to the idea of the original 302. An edit of a draft carries much less weight than "edits to a document" at large.
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 Yesterday, 05:06 PM   #513
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
But when the final 302 matches the contemporaneous interview notes (As in this case per Sullivan) there's no reason to think the final 302 is unreliable other than wishful thinking.
I have already explained why this logic is wrong. Repeating it won't make it any less wrong. Comparing the original 302 to the final 302 can tell us things about the 302 that comparing it to the notes will not.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 05:33 PM   #514
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Comparing the original 302 to the final 302 can tell us things about the 302 that comparing it to the notes will not.
Of course. Just like analyzing literally every saved version of the 302 that ever existed could provide additional information into the thought process of the drafter.

The thing is, we have no reason to expect the compilation of every saved version, or extra special draft 302 of unknown date, to provide any new or meaningful information. So this demand is pretty plainly a fishing expedition.

We have about as much reason to demand the receipt for lunch that the interviewing agents had after they met with Flynn. That receipt could be used with other receipts to show that they were meeting with Obama and Rice on the 24th, which would surely be worth knowing. Someone tell Trump to tweet demands the Flynn Lunch Receipt!
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 Yesterday, 05:53 PM   #515
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Of course. Just like analyzing literally every saved version of the 302 that ever existed could provide additional information into the thought process of the drafter.

The thing is, we have no reason to expect the compilation of every saved version, or extra special draft 302 of unknown date, to provide any new or meaningful information. So this demand is pretty plainly a fishing expedition.
It is entirely reasonable to expect a version untouched by anyone not actually at the interview. We do not have such a version. That is a problem.

And the accusation of a fishing expedition is more than a little ironic, since that's all Flynn's interview ever was.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 06:09 PM   #516
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,083
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And the accusation of a fishing expedition is more than a little ironic, since that's all Flynn's interview ever was.
I donít know how you you came up with that conclusion unless you really arenít listening to what other people are explaining to you.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís 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 Yesterday, 06:14 PM   #517
TahiniBinShawarma
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Source? The judge also reviewed the original notes and the final 302 and found there to be no discrepancy (See the December 16 opinion), so I'm curious how "relevant t" he found this.


"MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. On December 12, 2018, the Court ordered the government to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum." The government responded to the Court's Order under seal. Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. As such, and in view of the strong public presumption in favor of public access to judicial records, see, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."), the Court FORTHWITH ORDERS the government to file its proposed redacted version of the January 24, 2017 FD-302 on the public docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/17/2018. (lcegs3)"
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Yesterday, 06:18 PM   #518
TahiniBinShawarma
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post



Do you really think the AG makes all of the DoJ's prosecutorial decisions?

And we have no idea what Jensen said. Barr hasn't released the report.
1. Who said anything about all?

2. Why would he release a report when it's not done?
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Yesterday, 06:45 PM   #519
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,937
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I donít know how you you came up with that conclusion unless you really arenít listening to what other people are explaining to you.


Pulled out of his ass like every other post on this thread.
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 Yesterday, 07:06 PM   #520
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It is entirely reasonable to expect a version untouched by anyone not actually at the interview. We do not have such a version. That is a problem.
Who do you think you're impressing with all this duck and weaving? You assert the possible the value of the draft 302, I say respond regarding the expected value of the draft 302, and you respond with the paperwork we should expect. What evidence do we have that the 302 will tell us anything new? Why don't you want the Flynn Lunch Receipt? It could possibly prove literally anything.

Quote:
And the accusation of a fishing expedition is more than a little ironic, since that's all Flynn's interview ever was.
Not even an attempt at a defense of your fishing expedition.. Why don't we know Strozk's weight to the gram just prior to the interview and after the interview? That could prove he planted something on Flynn! Unless we know these facts, there'll never be 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
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 05:11 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.