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 Yesterday, 09:42 AM   #481
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
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 Yesterday, 09:53 AM   #482
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
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 Yesterday, 10:00 AM   #483
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,896
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; Yesterday 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 Yesterday, 10:05 AM   #484
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,110
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 online now   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, 10:14 AM   #485
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,110
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 online now   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, 12:41 PM   #486
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
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; Yesterday 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 Yesterday, 03:16 PM   #487
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,303
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 Yesterday, 04:20 PM   #488
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
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; Yesterday 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
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 02:39 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.