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 29th May 2020, 10:57 PM   #721
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Your opinions don't matter, the facts of what happened do. Your lack of a response to the facts presented are duly noted.
For someone who has relied on the integrity of relatively unknown individuals (US Attorney Jensen), it's rather telling that you'd ignore the point of a well known and much trusted individual (Mueller) finding it appropriate to go after Flynn. One set of standards for your interlocuters, another for yourself. I think you might be able to get a job in the AG's office under Barr!
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 29th May 2020, 10:57 PM   #722
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
No, but it does demonstrate that Barr is not interested in everyone getting the justice that he has interceded to provide for Flynn.

Barr's disinterest in justice is much more important than any punishment that Flynn does or does not deserve.
As I said, you'll get no complaint from me on this stance.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 29th May 2020, 11:04 PM   #723
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,939
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
That you don't know the facts is obvious. I'm here for that discussion.
Well, let's just wait and see what happens, shall we? You may not be as informed of 'the facts' as you like to think you are.

Your confidence that you know 'the facts' reminds me of the Meredith Kercher murder case. During the first trial the prosecution and all the pro-guilt supporters thought they had a slam dunk conviction based on 'the facts'... only to have it overturned in the appeal when 'the facts' turned out not to be 'the facts'. And then to have Knox and Sollecito definitively acquitted by the Court of Cassation. Ciao.
Stacyhs 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 29th May 2020, 11:13 PM   #724
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Well, let's just wait and see what happens, shall we? You may not be as informed of 'the facts' as you like to think you are.

Your confidence that you know 'the facts' reminds me of the Meredith Kercher murder case. During the first trial the prosecution and all the pro-guilt supporters thought they had a slam dunk conviction based on 'the facts'... only to have it overturned in the appeal when 'the facts' turned out not to be 'the facts'. And then to have Knox and Sollecito definitively acquitted by the Court of Cassation. Ciao.
I find it highly ironic that you described whats currently happenig in the Flynn case and you don't even realize it. Yes, I agree, lets get more facts, which is the exact opposite of what Van Grack was doing.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 29th May 2020, 11:51 PM   #725
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
For someone who has relied on the integrity of relatively unknown individuals (US Attorney Jensen), it's rather telling that you'd ignore the point of a well known and much trusted individual (Mueller) finding it appropriate to go after Flynn. One set of standards for your interlocuters, another for yourself. I think you might be able to get a job in the AG's office under Barr!
What I've actually done is look at the evidence, record, and law.
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 12:57 AM   #726
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Statement Of the offense
FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia.
Originally Posted by Flynn call with Kislyak, 29 December
Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff, where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?
Originally Posted by The 302
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not.
So, what's the current line on Flynn apologetics?

----

Reviewing the statement of offense, I suspect that this would've featured in a prosecution...
Originally Posted by The 302
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing or Russian properties in resposne to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. ... FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government BlackBerry was not working.
Originally Posted by Statement of Offense
On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke
with the PTT official
to report on the substance of his call with the
Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
So Flynn made a point of remembering that he was out of the loop because he didn't have his government phone, despite several multiple conversations on some other line. He supposedly did not remember, but he happened to remember some misleading details. Remember folks, lies of ommission can fall under 1001.

Last edited by Beeyon; Yesterday at 12:59 AM. Reason: Formatting
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, 01:00 AM   #727
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
What I've actually done is look at the evidence, record, and law.
I looked back and it was Bogative who relied on Jesen's trustworthiness, not you. Mea culpa.
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, 05:58 AM   #728
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
So, what's the current line on Flynn apologetics?

----

Reviewing the statement of offense, I suspect that this would've featured in a prosecution...




So Flynn made a point of remembering that he was out of the loop because he didn't have his government phone, despite several multiple conversations on some other line. He supposedly did not remember, but he happened to remember some misleading details. Remember folks, lies of ommission can fall under 1001.
Ex Order 13757 was distinctly different than the diplomatic expulsions as was reported at the time and as Obama made clear. The sanctions were not discussed, the expulsions were. The indictment/Statement Of the offense refers to sanctions.

In NYT article of Dec 29th , "ejecting" intel operatives and "sanctions" were disjunct measures.

http://archive.is/n1kjG


Reuters, "expulsion" of diplomats and "sanctions" on intel agencies are distinct measures

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true

On Feb 16, WaPo article observed that Flynn had acknowledged discussing "expulsions" but denied discussing "sanctions".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...401_story.html

Feb 14 interview with Daily Caller, published at 3:22 pm, Flynn had stated that issue (in this part of Kislyak call) was expulsions, not sanctions - a distinction in original Obama announcement and a distinction for Flynn.


And even at that
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 07:09 AM   #729
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yeah, no, the media is quoting Pence and nothing shows that Flynn and Russia separated those issues. Because they didn't. Like we're not here. That other people in other contexts can and have is meaningless.
Lying to Pence isn't a crime. They clearly were two separate issues as the links provided showed. You're hand waving of the facts doesn't change reality and are duly noted.
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 09:07 AM   #730
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,202
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Lying to Pence isn't a crime. They clearly were two separate issues as the links provided showed. You're hand waving of the facts doesn't change reality and are duly noted.
No, Flynn and Pence didn't treat them as separate in those instances. There is nothing invalid about lumping them together, and nothing you've posted show they had to be talked about as separate. I'm talking about them now as one thing, the US response to Russia's attacks on our elections. Your links no more prove I'm talking about the US response to Russia's attack as distinct things than they do that Flynn was when he talked to Russia.

Your inability to deal with reality and employing a false semantic handwave to rationalize it isn't surprising.

Lying to the FBI was a crime.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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   #731
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Ex Order 13757 was distinctly different than the diplomatic expulsions as was reported at the time and as Obama made clear. The sanctions were not discussed, the expulsions were. The indictment/Statement Of the offense refers to sanctions.

In NYT article of Dec 29th , "ejecting" intel operatives and "sanctions" were disjunct measures.

http://archive.is/n1kjG


Reuters, "expulsion" of diplomats and "sanctions" on intel agencies are distinct measures

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true

On Feb 16, WaPo article observed that Flynn had acknowledged discussing "expulsions" but denied discussing "sanctions".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...401_story.html

Feb 14 interview with Daily Caller, published at 3:22 pm, Flynn had stated that issue (in this part of Kislyak call) was expulsions, not sanctions - a distinction in original Obama announcement and a distinction for Flynn.


And even at that
So you're saying that when Flynn was requesting that Russia not overreact to the Obama Administration's actions, he was only asking them to not over react to the expulsions?
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, 09:49 AM   #732
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,975
Rule of SoTM
carlitos 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, 12:39 PM   #733
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
So, what's the current line on Flynn apologetics?

----

Reviewing the statement of offense, I suspect that this would've featured in a prosecution...




So Flynn made a point of remembering that he was out of the loop because he didn't have his government phone, despite several multiple conversations on some other line. He supposedly did not remember, but he happened to remember some misleading details. Remember folks, lies of ommission can fall under 1001.
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No, Flynn and Pence didn't treat them as separate in those instances. There is nothing invalid about lumping them together, and nothing you've posted show they had to be talked about as separate. I'm talking about them now as one thing, the US response to Russia's attacks on our elections. Your links no more prove I'm talking about the US response to Russia's attack as distinct things than they do that Flynn was when he talked to Russia.

Your inability to deal with reality and employing a false semantic handwave to rationalize it isn't surprising.

Lying to the FBI was a crime.
You ignoring the provided contemporaneous news articles doesn't make it go away.
TahiniBinShawarma 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   #734
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
So you're saying that when Flynn was requesting that Russia not overreact to the Obama Administration's actions, he was only asking them to not over react to the expulsions?
I've spelled it out like alphabet soup. I'm not saying that, it's what the transcript shows.
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 12:42 PM   #735
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,666
A National Security Adviser should probably not lie to his superiors.
But I guess that's just me
__________________
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 Yesterday, 01:40 PM   #736
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I've spelled it out like alphabet soup. I'm not saying that, it's what the transcript shows.
Alphabet soup is an incoherent jumble. Is this a self depreciating analogy or an idiom I am unfamiliar with?

Anyways, your theory imputed remarkable memory to Flynn during the January 24 interview. If he thought it was appropriate to say no based on the distinction between sanction and expulsion, then why was he saying he didn't recall to some of the questions about that conversation? "I don't remember" can be a false statement.
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, 01:47 PM   #737
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
A National Security Adviser should probably not lie to his superiors.
But I guess that's just me
I think that basically no one here agrees with me, but this is almost exactly the same sort of thing as the Hilary Email Server. Politically connected person in the national security sphere does thing that would ruin the life of a commoner who did the same thing, and their side defends them tirelessly based on a special set of standards that isn't used for plebians.
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, 02:07 PM   #738
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Alphabet soup is an incoherent jumble. Is this a self depreciating analogy or an idiom I am unfamiliar with?

Anyways, your theory imputed remarkable memory to Flynn during the January 24 interview. If he thought it was appropriate to say no based on the distinction between sanction and expulsion, then why was he saying he didn't recall to some of the questions about that conversation? "I don't remember" can be a false statement.
There are 3 paragraphs dealing with what people are incorrectly referring to as sanctions. Now if you can show me the agents asking about sanctions rather than expulsions you might have a point. Flynn was not asked about sanctions. The word appears nowhere. He was asked about expulsions. Mueller charging documents referred to sanctions, you can't lie about something you arent asked about.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20200530-160425_Drive.jpg (52.6 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20200530-160434_Drive.jpg (87.1 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20200530-160445_Drive.jpg (101.6 KB, 7 views)
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 07:57 PM   #739
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 12

Last edited by Agatha; Today at 08:58 AM.
Lurch 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, 08:22 PM   #740
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
TBS,
Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 12
What I've done is posted facts, cites, and documents which was sorely lacking in this thread. What I've seen in response is a lot of hand waving and ad hominem.

It would not be a full time job for you to show me in the 302 where sanctions are discussed as alleged in the indictment. What was asked about were the diplomatic expulsions. As the links provided (Reuters, NYT, WP) show, even Obama made the distinction between the two. You can't lie to agents about a subject they never brought up. Yet he was indicted for just that.

Last edited by Agatha; Today at 08:58 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 10:49 PM   #741
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
There are 3 paragraphs dealing with what people are incorrectly referring to as sanctions. Now if you can show me the agents asking about sanctions rather than expulsions you might have a point. Flynn was not asked about sanctions. The word appears nowhere. He was asked about expulsions. Mueller charging documents referred to sanctions, you can't lie about something you arent asked about.
Ok, let's look at the charges (Count One):

Originally Posted by Count One
On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully knowlingly make materiall false fictious statements and representations ... that:

(i) On or about December 29, 2016 FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United states had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request
Your interpretation of "sanctions" in this is limited to the EO13964 sanctions. You've cited three links; two of which are non-functional, and the third does not define the meaning of the term for a DoJ document produced nearly a year later. The DoJ charges do not appear to limit the term "sanctions" to EO13964 sanctions. If I missed where the DoJ document defines it, please point that out.

So what's the ordinary meaning of the term? "The detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law." Under the ordinary meaning, the expulsions were a form of sanction.

Until you can show that the DoJ document's use of the term "sanctions" was limited to EO13964 sanctions, you're just using unsual definitions to declare a false victory. No reasonable audience could be persauded by this.
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, 10:54 PM   #742
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
TBS,
Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 12
In their defense, this event rustled-my-jimmies so much that it spurred me to review the topic extensively and post excessively. I've looked at a good bit at the Flynn [s]document[/s] docket and have still spent less time on the topic than the average american's television viewing time over two days.

Last edited by Agatha; Today at 08:58 AM. Reason: Typo
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, 11:18 PM   #743
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
What contortions are necessary to make this not a misleading statement, Tahani?

Originally Posted by 302
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner, or slowing down the vote, or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN/. FLYNN answered, "No." FLYNN stated the conversations were along the lines of where do you stand, and what's your position. FLYNN heard through other channels that [REDACTED] did not like the vote, and believe the [REDACTED] of their own [REDACTED] delayed the vote a day.

Originally Posted by Flynn Transcript, 23 December 2016
Kislyak, "Yeah, General... Thank you for picking up my call, I just wanted... as a follow up. To share with you several points. One. That your previous telephone call, I reported to Moscow and it was considered at the highest level, in Russia. Secondly, here we are planning taking in account and rally your arguments to raise ahem, a prospal of idea of continued consultations in NY. We will do it today. To give time for working out something ahem, thaty would be, maybe less controversial

...

Kislyam, " ... But, responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we will try to help postpone the vote and allow for consultations."
Flynn, "OK, ok, that's good. That's great ambassador. That's all we can ask for it at this point in time.

How much would you bet that Mueller didn't have a transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak call that precipiated Kislyak's call?

Last edited by Beeyon; Yesterday at 11:19 PM. Reason: Formatting
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, 11:49 PM   #744
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Ok, let's look at the charges (Count One):



Your interpretation of "sanctions" in this is limited to the EO13964 sanctions. You've cited three links; two of which are non-functional, and the third does not define the meaning of the term for a DoJ document produced nearly a year later. The DoJ charges do not appear to limit the term "sanctions" to EO13964 sanctions. If I missed where the DoJ document defines it, please point that out.

So what's the ordinary meaning of the term? "The detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law." Under the ordinary meaning, the expulsions were a form of sanction.

Until you can show that the DoJ document's use of the term "sanctions" was limited to EO13964 sanctions, you're just using unsual definitions to declare a false victory. No reasonable audience could be persauded by this.
Here ya go.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20200531-015446_Drive.jpg (54.8 KB, 10 views)
TahiniBinShawarma 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, 11:56 PM   #745
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Ok, let's look at the charges (Count One):



Your interpretation of "sanctions" in this is limited to the EO13964 sanctions. You've cited three links; two of which are non-functional, and the third does not define the meaning of the term for a DoJ document produced nearly a year later. The DoJ charges do not appear to limit the term "sanctions" to EO13964 sanctions. If I missed where the DoJ document defines it, please point that out.

So what's the ordinary meaning of the term? "The detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law." Under the ordinary meaning, the expulsions were a form of sanction.

Until you can show that the DoJ document's use of the term "sanctions" was limited to EO13964 sanctions, you're just using unsual definitions to declare a false victory. No reasonable audience could be persauded by this.
Right here.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot_20200531-015446_Drive.jpg (54.8 KB, 4 views)
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Today, 12:17 AM   #746
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Q
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Ok, let's look at the charges (Count One):



Your interpretation of "sanctions" in this is limited to the EO13964 sanctions. You've cited three links; two of which are non-functional, and the third does not define the meaning of the term for a DoJ document produced nearly a year later. The DoJ charges do not appear to limit the term "sanctions" to EO13964 sanctions. If I missed where the DoJ document defines it, please point that out.

So what's the ordinary meaning of the term? "The detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law." Under the ordinary meaning, the expulsions were a form of sanction.

Until you can show that the DoJ document's use of the term "sanctions" was limited to EO13964 sanctions, you're just using unsual definitions to declare a false victory. No reasonable audience could be persauded by this.
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
What contortions are necessary to make this not a misleading statement, Tahani?



How much would you bet that Mueller didn't have a transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak call that precipiated Kislyak's call?
Maybe, maybe not. Is there a transcript of Flynn requesting?

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; Today at 12:42 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Today, 12:46 AM   #747
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Here ya go.
That's not the dumbest argument ever. Cheers!

Originally Posted by Statement of Offense
On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").
The statement of offense is somewhat contradictory. The portion you cite does imply that the specific construction of "U.S. sanctions" refers to the executive order sanctions. However, other portions use the term more broadly (e.g., Putin's December 30 Statement is cited as referencing "U.S. Sanctions", but said statement only discusses the expulsions. At best, the statement of offense is somewhat muddled.

The actuall charging document does not use "U.S. sanctions" like the statement of offense, and instead references "sanctions that the United States had imposed". Further the charging document was filed before and on a separate day than the statement of offense. So even if the statement of offense defines "U.S. sanctions" as limited to the EO sanctions, that definition isn't relevant to distinct terminology used in the earlier charge. Good try though.

Also, between the 302 and the transcript there is still a false statement to the FBI regarding Flynn's denial of discussing the expulsions. The DoJ muddling whatever they asked Flynn to stipulate to does not undermine the actual charges or their case for those charges.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Maybe, maybe not. Is there a transcript of Flynn requesting? He wasn't charged with that.
1. The transcript we do have heavily implies that it was requested. That's why I highlighted the charming bits about "we are planning taking into account and rally your arguments to raise ahem, a proposal of idea of continued consultations in NY" and "responding to your telephone call and our conversations we will try to help postpone the vote." Perhaps if Flynn had responded "what are you talking about, ambassador Kislyak?" someone could make a convincing argument that there was no such call. But considering he said "That's all we can ask for", I think not. I think a reasonable person would conclude outside the court room that he did make those requests in an earlier call. Since you like to frame things in term's of the Special Counsel's hypothetical case, how much would you personally be comfortable betting that the Special Counsel didn't have another transcript making the request?

2. Demonstrably incorrect. The charges explicitly reference these points.

Originally Posted by Charging Document
On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictious, and fraudulent statements and representations ..., that:

(ii) On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia's response to his request
Charging document
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 Today, 01:25 AM   #748
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,666
Barr/Trump is forcing out the FBI's top lawyer Dana Boente, even though their IG found no wrongdoing on his part whatsoever.
But those who do not bow to the king must be replaced.
__________________
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 Today, 07:02 AM   #749
TahiniBinShawarma
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
That's not the dumbest argument ever. Cheers!



The statement of offense is somewhat contradictory. The portion you cite does imply that the specific construction of "U.S. sanctions" refers to the executive order sanctions. However, other portions use the term more broadly (e.g., Putin's December 30 Statement is cited as referencing "U.S. Sanctions", but said statement only discusses the expulsions. At best, the statement of offense is somewhat muddled.

The actuall charging document does not use "U.S. sanctions" like the statement of offense, and instead references "sanctions that the United States had imposed". Further the charging document was filed before and on a separate day than the statement of offense. So even if the statement of offense defines "U.S. sanctions" as limited to the EO sanctions, that definition isn't relevant to distinct terminology used in the earlier charge. Good try though.

Also, between the 302 and the transcript there is still a false statement to the FBI regarding Flynn's denial of discussing the expulsions. The DoJ muddling whatever they asked Flynn to stipulate to does not undermine the actual charges or their case for those charges.



1. The transcript we do have heavily implies that it was requested. That's why I highlighted the charming bits about "we are planning taking into account and rally your arguments to raise ahem, a proposal of idea of continued consultations in NY" and "responding to your telephone call and our conversations we will try to help postpone the vote." Perhaps if Flynn had responded "what are you talking about, ambassador Kislyak?" someone could make a convincing argument that there was no such call. But considering he said "That's all we can ask for", I think not. I think a reasonable person would conclude outside the court room that he did make those requests in an earlier call. Since you like to frame things in term's of the Special Counsel's hypothetical case, how much would you personally be comfortable betting that the Special Counsel didn't have another transcript making the request?

2. Demonstrably incorrect. The charges explicitly reference these points.


Charging document

Flynn didn't sign the charging document, he signed the statement of offence, which made very clear it was 13757. It is clearly wrong. You may not like that, but I fail to see how this document would hold up on appeal if Sullivan didn't honor the request to withdraw the guilty pleading.


With respect to the UN vote, "heavily implying" obviously leaves reasonable doubt. "Your arguments" doesn''t mean he asked. Flynn could just as easily have been asked how the Trump team felt about the vote by Kislyak. "Thats all we can ask for" could also be a general reactive expression to good news. The good news being that the Russians wanted to make the UN proposal less "controversial."

I don't know whether Mueller had the previous call transcript. Without it, I wouldn't say for certain just like you can't. As Comey said about Flynn lying "it's a close one."
TahiniBinShawarma 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 Today, 08:18 AM   #750
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Flynn didn't sign the charging document, he signed the statement of offence, which made very clear it was 13757. It is clearly wrong. You may not like that, but I fail to see how this document would hold up on appeal if Sullivan didn't honor the request to withdraw the guilty pleading.
The Statement of Offense doesn't have to "hold up". It's just a favor Flynn does for the prosecution as part of the plea deal. If you don't "like" that, put up some precedent where an error in the plea deal stipulations resulted in the plea deal being overturned.

Quote:
With respect to the UN vote, "heavily implying" obviously leaves reasonable doubt. "Your arguments" doesn''t mean he asked. Flynn could just as easily have been asked how the Trump team felt about the vote by Kislyak. "Thats all we can ask for" could also be a general reactive expression to good news. The good news being that the Russians wanted to make the UN proposal less "controversial."
I don't think there is reasonable doubt. Kislyak specifically referenced Flynn'a input. You're giving Flynn more of a benefit of the doubt than we typically give defendants again. "The McDonald's CEO called his stock broker and said 'SELL MCDONALDS!!!', but he COULD have been referring to his McDonalds merchandise rather than his stock, so it's not insider trading!" Please. If you're gonna engage in empty sophistry, why bother posting?

Quote:
I don't know whether Mueller had the previous call transcript. Without it, I wouldn't say for certain just like you can't. As Comey said about Flynn lying "it's a close one."
This is a pretty evasive non-answer. I am pretty confident that Mueller had the transcript, and the request was explicit. So far, what they released very nicely buttresses the prosecution. Enjoy the unreasonable doubt afforded your position based on the selective release of documents of the administration. It won't last forever!
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 09:02 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.