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 18th May 2020, 08:54 AM   #281
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yes, actually, it was.

The security services in question are permitted to monitor communications by foreign nationals. They are prohibited from monitoring communications by citizens, without a proper warrant.

When the security services are monitoring communications between foreign nationals and citizens, they are required to redact the identity of the citizen, to avoid violating their prohibition and committing government overreach. Overriding the redaction without a proper warrant is indeed a heinous crime, as it should be. Prosecuting on the basis of illegal unmasking is also a crime, as it should be.

It is a long-standing principle of good jurisprudence and rule of law that a case built on violation of due process must be thrown out, even if the case does prove its allegations.

As a matter of law, agents of the state are not permitted to seek justice by cheating. As a matter of principle, I don't think the state can bring justice by cheating. Even guilty people are entitled to due process. Even guilty people should go free if the state cheats in trying to bring them to justice. If government officials broke the rules to go after Flynn, then it is they, and not Flynn, who should be prosecuted.

I'd like to see an argument that opens with explicit agreement with this principle of rule of law, and then goes on to defend Flynn's unmasking on the basis of that agreement.
Flynn was investigated as part of counter-intelligence, not criminal investigation.
That is why there was no issue whatsoever with what people in the Obama Administration had to do to protect the US.

You are aware that the Trump WH has had tens of thousands of people unmasked, right?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
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 18th May 2020, 09:08 AM   #282
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Flynn was investigated as part of counter-intelligence, not criminal investigation.
That is why there was no issue whatsoever with what people in the Obama Administration had to do to protect the US.
Intelligence work and criminal justice are completely separate domains, with separate rules and separate scopes. The state needing to know the caller's identity for national security reasons does not translate to the state being entitled to reveal his identity for criminal prosecution.

Quote:
You are aware that the Trump WH has had tens of thousands of people unmasked, right?
What's your endgame, here? Are we supposed to tolerate Obama's improper behavior because Trump does more of the same? Are we supposed to stipulate that Trump's unmaskings are not improper, and therefore neither are Obama's?

Can you make this argument from the other direction?

"Obama's unmaskings have Justification X, which is not true for Trump's unmaskings."

Anyway:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'd like to see an argument that opens with explicit agreement with this principle of rule of law, and then goes on to defend Flynn's unmasking on the basis of that agreement.
theprestige 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 18th May 2020, 09:13 AM   #283
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are aware that the Trump WH has had tens of thousands of people unmasked, right?
No, I am not aware that the Trump White House has unmasked tens of thousands of people.

I'm aware of reports that roughly those numbers of people were unmasked during the Trump administration, but the reports I've seen only list those as totals for the government, and do not break down how many of those were unmasked by people in the White House versus outside the White House. Since the White House is generally not engaged directly in either criminal or counter-intelligence investigations, I expect that only a small fraction of those names were actually unmasked by the White House. If you have a source which indicates otherwise, please share. If you do not, consider yourself corrected.
__________________
"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 18th May 2020, 10:43 AM   #284
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, I am not aware that the Trump White House has unmasked tens of thousands of people.

I'm aware of reports that roughly those numbers of people were unmasked during the Trump administration, but the reports I've seen only list those as totals for the government, and do not break down how many of those were unmasked by people in the White House versus outside the White House. Since the White House is generally not engaged directly in either criminal or counter-intelligence investigations, I expect that only a small fraction of those names were actually unmasked by the White House. If you have a source which indicates otherwise, please share. If you do not, consider yourself corrected.
And what difference does that make, exactly?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
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 18th May 2020, 11:08 AM   #285
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And what difference does that make, exactly?
A lot, I think. Departmental staff going through due process without being micromanged from the White House is a lot different from White House staff dispensing with due process.

But like I said:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What's your endgame, here? Are we supposed to tolerate Obama's improper behavior because Trump does more of the same? Are we supposed to stipulate that Trump's unmaskings are not improper, and therefore neither are Obama's?
And:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'd like to see an argument that opens with explicit agreement with this principle of rule of law, and then goes on to defend Flynn's unmasking on the basis of that agreement.
theprestige 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 18th May 2020, 11:22 AM   #286
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And what difference does that make, exactly?
A pedantic difference; the best kind of difference!
__________________
"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 18th May 2020, 11:26 AM   #287
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
A pedantic difference; the best kind of difference!
The difference between Joe Biden unmasking Flynn and an FBI counterintelligence agent unmasking Flynn is pedantic?

Yeah, no.
__________________
"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 18th May 2020, 11:30 AM   #288
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,212
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
A pedantic difference; the best kind of difference!
Not pedantic at all. There's a huge difference, practically and in principle, between civil servants following departmental procedure and due process, and White House officials dispensing with those niceties.

But IF, as you suggest, the difference between Obama admin WH staff doing it and Trump admin agency staff doing it is merely pedantic, THEN:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What's your endgame, here? Are we supposed to tolerate Obama's improper behavior because Trump does more of the same? Are we supposed to stipulate that Trump's unmaskings are not improper, and therefore neither are Obama's?
theprestige 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 18th May 2020, 11:38 AM   #289
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not pedantic at all. There's a huge difference, practically and in principle, between civil servants following departmental procedure and due process, and White House officials dispensing with those niceties.

But IF, as you suggest, the difference between Obama admin WH staff doing it and Trump admin agency staff doing it is merely pedantic, THEN:
Is it improper behavior? I'm not sure I ever suggested that it was...
__________________
"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 18th May 2020, 06:17 PM   #290
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
1) The FBI's Washington Field office's Closing Communication on Crossfire Razor. Knowing that the FBI had decided to drop it's investigation without intention to charge him with a crime would be exculpatory, at least according to his attorney.
Do you always believe advocate opinion on questions of law? I don't see how this is exculpatory.

Quote:
2) Communications showing how the FBI was intentionally trying to deceive Flynn about the January 24 interview being adversarial. That includes emails and texts from Priestap, Page and Strzok.
For the sake of conversation, it'd be helpful for you to identify the particular communications.

I also don't see how these are exculpatory as you've described them. Are you aware of any caselaw which requires the government provide you with their full intent during an interview?

Quote:
The question is: how much did the prosecution disclose to Flynn? The document you linked to says the government provided "dozens of relevant documents", "Strzok's preference for a presidential candidate" and "FBI agents did not think he was lying."
No, the question is whether they failed to disclose material when they should have disclosed it. Obviously, the document is inconclusive to the general question, but it is conclusive against some people's idea that the FBI kept the initial impression of the agents from Flynn.

Quote:
Did the prosecution inform Flynn and his counsel about the texts between Page and Strzok where they discussed altering his 302 multiple times? I'm guessing that could possibly sway his decision to plead guilty.
Did you know that there's no national requirement to disclose exculpatory material prior to a plea bargain? I can't find the precedent for the Circuit of Columbia, but as recently as last year SCOTUS declined to consider a case a kid plead guilty while the prosecutors withheld exculpatory video evidence. Do you think Barr is interested in Justice for that kid?
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 18th May 2020, 06:59 PM   #291
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
I also don't see how these are exculpatory as you've described them. Are you aware of any caselaw which requires the government provide you with their full intent during an interview?
Brady material includes material that could affect sentencing, not just verdict. If the FBI was out to get Flynn, that could easily produce a lighter sentence even with a guilty verdict.

Quote:
Did you know that there's no national requirement to disclose exculpatory material prior to a plea bargain? I can't find the precedent for the Circuit of Columbia, but as recently as last year SCOTUS declined to consider a case a kid plead guilty while the prosecutors withheld exculpatory video evidence. Do you think Barr is interested in Justice for that kid?
IIRC Van Grack was under a specific order to produce all Brady material. He told the court he had. He had 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 18th May 2020, 09:12 PM   #292
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A lot, I think. Departmental staff going through due process without being micromanged from the White House is a lot different from White House staff dispensing with due process.
I think you don't quite get the process.
Assuming intelligence officer A unmasks a US citizens scheming with a foreign agent. He/she puts a report together, because they deem the interaction a national security risk. But they can't name the citizen in the report - only the connection.
The consumer of the Report has to request an unmasking him/herself to get the context - which might or might not be necessary.

Do you disagree that, for context, it was essential for the WH to know who exactly in the Trump campaign was extensively communicating with the Russian Ambassador?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
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 18th May 2020, 10:59 PM   #293
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,249
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Brady material includes material that could affect sentencing, not just verdict. If the FBI was out to get Flynn, that could easily produce a lighter sentence even with a guilty verdict.

IIRC Van Grack was under a specific order to produce all Brady material. He told the court he had. He had not.
And why do you think that could be? Could it be all that sneaky criming and lying about it to the investigators might have something to do with the FBI trying to "get" him? Or is that conclusion too obvious?
__________________
"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 18th May 2020, 11:56 PM   #294
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Brady material includes material that could affect sentencing, not just verdict. If the FBI was out to get Flynn, that could easily produce a lighter sentence even with a guilty verdict.
First of all, what disclosure is supposed to establish that the FBI "was out to get Flynn"?

Secondly, how would be the FBI Targeting Flynn be material to his punishment? Do you have any examples of where an investigatory agency targeting a suspect was relevant to their sentence?

Quote:
IIRC Van Grack was under a specific order to produce all Brady material.
After you implicitly declined to identify the Brady material and articulate how it was exculpatory, Bogative jumped in with:

Originally Posted by Bogative, Post 267
Did the prosecution inform Flynn and his counsel about the texts between Page and Strzok where they discussed altering his 302 multiple times? I'm guessing that could possibly sway his decision to plead guilty.
The above is the line which preceded my comment which you quoted. I don't know how you missed that because it was right there in my post which you quoted. The order you reference occured in February 2018. The plea deal is from November 2017. So Van Grack actually was not under the order in the particular context that I was responding to Bogative.

Quote:
He told the court he had. He had not.
You've failed to even begin to establish this despite repeated requests to identify the supposed Brady material and articulate how it is material.
I'm pretty confident that you're just going to keep repeating the talking point, but know that absolutely no-one is impressed.
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 19th May 2020, 01:11 AM   #295
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
And why do you think that could be? Could it be all that sneaky criming and lying about it to the investigators might have something to do with the FBI trying to "get" him? Or is that conclusion too obvious?
I thought in the Obamagate version of events, him "lying" came after they had decided to get him? Obama talking about the Logan act, and the "are we trying to get him fired?" came first, no?
shuttlt 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 19th May 2020, 04:11 AM   #296
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
And why do you think that could be? Could it be all that sneaky criming and lying about it to the investigators might have something to do with the FBI trying to "get" him? Or is that conclusion too obvious?
That conclusion requires time travel.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 04:14 AM   #297
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
First of all, what disclosure is supposed to establish that the FBI "was out to get Flynn"?
I have already given an example. I'm not interested in repeating myself.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 04:29 AM   #298
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I have already given an example.
Did you? Or did you make an unsupported claim? Iíve noticed you often treat the two synonymously.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 07:07 AM   #299
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Do you disagree that, for context, it was essential for the WH to know who exactly in the Trump campaign was extensively communicating with the Russian Ambassador?
I don't agree, since the contents of that call were innocuous. But even if I did, it doesn't explain why a bunch of Treasury personnel made unmasking requests regarding Flynn in mid-December 2016, before Flynn even had his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 07:10 AM   #300
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't agree, since the contents of that call were innocuous. But even if I did, it doesn't explain why a bunch of Treasury personnel made unmasking requests regarding Flynn in mid-December 2016, before Flynn even had his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
innocuous?
you are kidding, right?


So you would be fine with Biden picking up the phone and talking to Xi Jinping about US-China trade deals right now?

Or to talk to Iran about lifting sanctions under a Biden presidency?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 19th May 2020 at 07:18 AM.
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 19th May 2020, 07:21 AM   #301
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
innocuous?
you are kidding, right?
No, I'm not. What's the supposedly controversial topic? Sanctions. Obama imposed some on Russia, Flynn didn't want Russia to retaliate. Guess what? That's in America's interests. It benefits us if Russia doesn't retaliate.

Quote:
So you would be fine with Biden picking up the phone and talking to Xi Jinping about US-China trade deals right now?

Or to talk to Iran about lifting sanctions under a Biden presidency?
Democrats do that **** all the time, whether I like it or not. And that's even when they aren't in office and haven't won an elections. If Biden wins the election, then I fully expect him or his team to be in contact with the Chinese in December/January to talk about trade. If you think he will hold off on even any discussions until after inauguration, you're not only naive, you're impractical. Why wouldn't you start to talk before inauguration so that you can hit the ground running?
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 08:21 AM   #302
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
I'm still watching (it's 45 minutes), but this guy is usually fair and reliable.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 09:01 AM   #303
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I have already given an example. I'm not interested in repeating myself.
It shouldn't be too much to identify a post number if that's true.

And an example doesn't answer the key question, how is that targeting material to punishment?
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 19th May 2020, 09:09 AM   #304
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
It shouldn't be too much to identify a post number if that's true.
#27.

Quote:
And an example doesn't answer the key question, how is that targeting material to punishment?
You don't see how that could be relevant to the court's interpretation of the severity of the offense? Then I can't help you further.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 09:21 AM   #305
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,357
I guess the point is that unmasking who is doing criminal activity is wrong if Obama does it..
__________________
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 19th May 2020, 09:21 AM   #306
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
#27.
Your link in that post doesn't work.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 09:46 AM   #307
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I guess the point is that unmasking who is doing criminal activity is wrong if Obama does it..
What criminal activity was unmasked? Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't criminal.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 09:48 AM   #308
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Your link in that post doesn't work.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=27

Will there be anything else, master?

shuttlt 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 19th May 2020, 09:50 AM   #309
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What criminal activity was unmasked? Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't criminal.
Put on these glasses and look again:

shuttlt 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 19th May 2020, 09:50 AM   #310
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Your link in that post doesn't work.
The link works fine for me. But here's another link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.188.0_8.pdf
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 09:52 AM   #311
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Put on these glasses and look again:
What crime do you think Flynn was engaging in when he got unmasked? Are you one of those people who still takes seriously the claim that Flynn violated the Logan Act?
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:00 AM   #312
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
#27.
OK, thanks for the specificity.

I don't agree that this demonstrates that the FBI was "out to get Flynn." It's one agent musing about strategy, with no conclusion. But let's assume that they were out to get him.

Quote:
You don't see how that could be relevant to the court's interpretation of the severity of the offense? Then I can't help you further.
I do not. I am unaware of investigatory intentions playing a role in sentencing. I do not think mob bosses get lighter sentences because they were targeted by the FBI. And I do not think crimes that the police stumble blindly into investigating get harsher sentences. I would happily consider any citation to the contrary.

However I appreciate your directness about being unable to construct an explanation for a non-sympathetic audience.
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 19th May 2020, 10:05 AM   #313
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What crime do you think Flynn was engaging in when he got unmasked? Are you one of those people who still takes seriously the claim that Flynn violated the Logan Act?
Even if he did, if what he did was standard practice then that part of it is blown out of all proportion. As to what crimes he may have committed, I imagine the FBI etc have that well documented. I am happy to wait this out. I guess if I think anything about it it's that any crimes he may have committed are probably underwhelming or they would have been worth using against Trump by now. It could still be enough to keep him in prison for all I know.

I might be wrong, but I am hopeful there may be a few fireworks released by both sides before the election and we will find some things out that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day.
shuttlt 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 19th May 2020, 10:07 AM   #314
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
I do not. I am unaware of investigatory intentions playing a role in sentencing. I do not think mob bosses get lighter sentences because they were targeted by the FBI.
That's because they are targeted for crimes. Why was Flynn targeted? His phone call with the Russian ambassador, the subject of the interview, wasn't criminal, and the FBI knew it wasn't when they interviewed him. In fact, the interview served no legitimate purpose at all. They had the transcript already, there was no actual information they needed from Flynn.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:07 AM   #315
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I meant the link in post #27.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:13 AM   #316
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The link works fine for me. But here's another link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.188.0_8.pdf
Thanks, but it doesn't appear to support what you think it does.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:19 AM   #317
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's because they are targeted for crimes. Why was Flynn targeted? His phone call with the Russian ambassador, the subject of the interview, wasn't criminal, and the FBI knew it wasn't when they interviewed him. In fact, the interview served no legitimate purpose at all. They had the transcript already, there was no actual information they needed from Flynn.
I really suggest you learn more about how the legal system works. The video I provided above does an excellent job of breaking down the issues here.
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:26 AM   #318
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,152
IF what Flynn did was so super legal ...

WHY did he lie to Pence about it?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
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 19th May 2020, 10:28 AM   #319
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,186
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
IF what Flynn did was so super legal ...

WHY did he lie to Pence about it?
Why did he plead guilty to it in criminal court? Twice?
__________________
"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 19th May 2020, 10:50 AM   #320
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,226
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Why did he plead guilty to it in criminal court? Twice?
He didn't plead guilty to talking to the Russian Ambassador.
__________________
"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
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 01:22 AM.
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.