Merged: Justice Deparment Drops Case Against M. Flynn

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your claim wasn't to the court's conclusion either. Hell, it wasn't the IG's conclusion either, you misrepresented even that.

Correct. I was accurately representing the news article about the topic that I sourced. I’m not even sure how your court document relates, but I do know you took one line from it out of context that of the document itself.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

WRT the whole "unmasking" thing...Former officials say that Flynn was never masked in the first place

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. You aren't following what people have been saying in this thread. For example:

That's an invented crime. It's not real.

The crime, that Flynn pled guilty to, was lying to investigators about this.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Correct. I was accurately representing the news article about the topic that I sourced.

Then your news article is wrong (I can’t access it, so I take your word for it that it says what you claim), which makes you wrong too.

Quote:

I’m not even sure how your court document relates, but I do know you took one line from it out of context that of the document itself.

It’s not out of context at all. The DOJ’s official position is that the FISA application errors invalidated at least two of the warrants on Carter Paige, in direct contradiction to your claim. It proves you wrong.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by fishbob

The crime, that Flynn pled guilty to, was lying to investigators about this.

And we do not know what other crimes that he may have committed, as he plead guilty to this one. Presumably because this was the smallest crime.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It’s not out of context at all. The DOJ’s official position is that the FISA application errors invalidated at least two of the warrants on Carter Paige, in direct contradiction to your claim. It proves you wrong.

You’re still leaving out context. Yes, the sentence you quoted says the it’s the government’s position that two of the dockets are invalid. The next sentence is that the government takes no position on two other dockets, at least one of which are the earliest of them in 2016. Not knowing what are in those dockets, per se, it’s entirely possible that my linked article is correct that the disputed dockets do not invalidate that the warrant would have been issued regardless of any improper actions by an FBI official.

But we don’t know what each of those dockets are. Or at least, I don’t. Your link doesn’t support your claim.

ETA: Back on topic, Flynn was aware of, at least, the existence of some kind of FBI impropriety when he plead guilty under oath and plead guilty anyway. I’m not sure this is relevant to the topic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Pure Bayesian Statistics tells you to be skeptical about anything Trump has said and done.

Not to mention frequentist statistics.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then your news article is wrong (I can’t access it, so I take your word for it that it says what you claim), which makes you wrong too.

Here's an equivalent Reuters story:

Quote:

Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

But he also found a total of 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) that made the case appear stronger than it was.

In other words, as I said, it was found that there were problems, but it didn't invalidate issuing the warrant. Well, at least, not all of them.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You’re still leaving out context.

As we shall see in a moment, you have that backwards.

Quote:

Yes, the sentence you quoted says the it’s the government’s position that two of the dockets are invalid. The next sentence is that the government takes no position on two other dockets, at least one of which are the earliest of them in 2016. Not knowing what are in those dockets, per se, it’s entirely possible that my linked article is correct that the disputed dockets do not invalidate that the warrant would have been issued regardless of any improper actions by an FBI official. But we don’t know what each of those dockets are. Or at least, I don’t. Your link doesn’t support your claim.

We know exactly what all four dockets are, and you should have too had you paid attention to the context. They are the FISA surveillance applications against Carter Paige. How do we know? Context. Which you left out. Furthermore, we know the two invalid ones were the ones with the larger docket numbers (because my link states that directly), and hence were the latter two of the four applications. And we know from the IG report when the FBI agent altered the document Bubba referred to, and when the various applications were made. So we can in fact put two and two together.

Bubba did get one thing wrong, though. The document that the FBI agent altered didn't go to the judge. The information it contained should have gone to the judge in its unfalsified form, but the falsified document was passed to the agent's superior, and that information affected what was contained within the FISA application. The FISA application thus did not contain information it was required to contain. But the document didn't go directly to the court.

Quote:

ETA: Back on topic, Flynn was aware of, at least, the existence of some kind of FBI impropriety when he plead guilty under oath and plead guilty anyway. I’m not sure this is relevant to the topic.

Let's say the police frame you for a crime. You know they framed you, but you have no way of proving it, so you might rationally plead guilty to the crime to minimize your sentence even knowing for certain both that you are innocent and that the police framed you. If evidence later comes out that shows how the police framed you, you might well want to withdraw your plea and contest the charges. What changed isn't your knowledge of your own guilty, or even your knowledge that the police framed you. What changed is your ability to demonstrate it.

To mount an effective defense, Flynn needed more than just to know that the FBI acted improperly. He had to be able to show that. He's in a much better position to do so now than when he pled.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

In other words, as I said, it was found that there were problems, but it didn't invalidate issuing the warrant. Well, at least, not all of them.

You still have it wrong. The IG said they had grounds to ask the court for a warrant. That does NOT mean that the court would have granted the warrant had it been fully informed. They might not have, the IG cannot and did not make that call for them. More importantly, you're leaving out the context I mentioned earlier: the altered document that Bubba referred to wasn't part of the initial FISA applications, it was part of a later renewal, which the IG concedes was invalid. So that alteration absolutely makes a difference to the validity of those later FISA renewals.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We know exactly what all four dockets are, and you should have too had you paid attention to the context. They are the FISA surveillance applications against Carter Paige. How do we know? Context. Which you left out. Furthermore, we know the two invalid ones were the ones with the larger docket numbers (because my link states that directly), and hence were the latter two of the four applications. And we know from the IG report when the FBI agent altered the document Bubba referred to, and when the various applications were made. So we can in fact put two and two together.

Yes, I realize that all four dockets are related to Carter Page. That's not the problem. What you are missing is evidence that the two uncontested dockets were invalidated the two contested dockets. Just because two of the dockets were considered invalid by the government does not mean that all the dockets are invalid.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Let's say the police frame you for a crime. You know they framed you, but you have no way [snip]

Cool story, bro. In all of this, there has never been a claim that he didn't actually commit the crime to which he plead guilty.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

To mount an effective defense, Flynn needed more than just to know that the FBI acted improperly. He had to be able to show that. He's in a much better position to do so now than when he pled.

Flynn's best defense was to not lie to the FBI. He did the crime, he should do the time.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You still have it wrong. The IG said they had grounds to ask the court for a warrant. That does NOT mean that the court would have granted the warrant had it been fully informed.

You're still ignoring that they did not context two fo the dockets. Those still stand on their own, do they not? If they are, as you say, the earlier of the four dockets, they would not have been influenced by the later dockets.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They might not have, the IG cannot and did not make that call for them. More importantly, you're leaving out the context I mentioned earlier: the altered document that Bubba referred to wasn't part of the initial FISA applications, it was part of a later renewal, which the IG concedes was invalid. So that alteration absolutely makes a difference to the validity of those later FISA renewals.

Well, do you have evidence that the FISA court finds the renewals invalid? The document you presented earlier still has it as an open question.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Yes, I realize that all four dockets are related to Carter Page. That's not the problem. What you are missing is evidence that the two uncontested dockets were invalidated the two contested dockets. Just because two of the dockets were considered invalid by the government does not mean that all the dockets are invalid.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but time travel isn't possible. The document alteration Bubba referenced is therefore not relevant to the first two FISA applications, because it happened later. If they remain valid, that has nothing to do with what Bubba claimed.

Quote:

Cool story, bro. In all of this, there has never been a claim that he didn't actually commit the crime to which he plead guilty.

There would have been had Flynn been able to retract his guilty plea. But as I pointed out, the claim that he's innocence is actually irrelevant to the withdrawl, which is why he didn't make it as part of his withdrawl motion.

Quote:

Flynn's best defense was to not lie to the FBI. He did the crime, he should do the time.

Did he do the crime? How do you know? Because he pled guilty? People plead guilty to crimes they are innocent of all the time. Because the FBI said so? On what basis do you believe them? They can't even produce the original 302's.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You're still ignoring that they did not context two fo the dockets.

Of course I'm ignoring that, because time travel isn't possible, and so that's not even relevant to Bubba's claim. How do you still not get that?

[Upchurch]

The IG disagrees with you. Most reputable law experts that I can find on the matter disagree with you. None of the available evidence agrees with your conclusions.

I don't know what else to say.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The IG disagrees with you.

About what? About the validity of the first two FISA applications? I made no claim about them, we can't disagree. About Flynn's guilt? The IG hasn't spoken about that, we can't disagree. About time travel not being possible? I think we probably agree, though I cannot be certain. About Bubba's claim being correct that the FBI agent who falsified an email from the CIA compromised the validity of a FISA application? Well, aside from the minor mistake he made that I pointed out, I see no contradiction between his statement and Bubba's or mine (again, that falsification happened later, so of course it cannot have any effect on the first two FISA applications). So what claim are you even talking about?

You are very confused, and cannot even express yourself comprehensibly anymore.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

About what?

From my Reuter's link above:

Quote:

Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

But also, you have been confused about many things about this case. When corrected, you either argue yourself deeper into your CT hole or ignore the topic completely.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

From my Reuter's link above:

That was never in contention. Seriously, do you not understand the sequence of events? The invalid FISA application that Bubba was referring to CANNOT have been the first application, because the document alteration happened after the first application was granted. So that has no possible bearing on the validity of Bubba's claim, or of mine. Why do you keep repeating these irrelevancies as if they mean anything?

Quote:

But also, you have been confused about many things about this case. When corrected, you either argue yourself deeper into your CT hole or ignore the topic completely.

That's more than a little ironic, given your latest display. You were wrong about Bubba's claims, and your desperate attempts to cling to different FISA applications than the one he referred to is just getting pathetic now.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That was never in contention.

Maybe not for you, but I wasn't responding to you when I posted the original article, was I?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Maybe not for you, but I wasn't responding to you when I posted the original article, was I?

What, this post? You were wrong, the article you posted doesn't contradict Bubba's claim because that agent's forgery DID have a bearing on the later FISA warrant, and that's what we've just been going over. Bubba made a mistake, but it's not the one you thought you identified, it's the one I identified.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Yes, I realize that all four dockets are related to Carter Page. That's not the problem. What you are missing is evidence that the two uncontested dockets were invalidated the two contested dockets. Just because two of the dockets were considered invalid by the government does not mean that all the dockets are invalid.



Cool story, bro. In all of this, there has never been a claim that he didn't actually commit the crime to which he plead guilty.



Flynn's best defense was to not lie to the FBI. He did the crime, he should do the time.

OK, Lets nail this nonsense down.
What exactly was the alleged lie Flynn told the FBI?
Specifics please?

Which BTW in and of itself was improper questioning by the FBI.
Comey brags about it. I'll have to dig up the link, but Comey admits to telling Flynn it was an informal interview and he didn't need counsel then they turn around and use it as a means to entrap him. And Comey gets a big laugh out of admitting it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

OK, Lets nail this nonsense down.
What exactly was the alleged lie Flynn told the FBI?
Specifics please?

You should probably ask Flynn. He’s the one who admitted that he lied.

Quote:

Which BTW in and of itself was improper questioning by the FBI.
Comey brags about it. I'll have to dig up the link, but Comey admits to telling Flynn it was an informal interview and he didn't need counsel then they turn around and use it as a means to entrap him. And Comey gets a big laugh out of admitting it.

And yet for some mysterious reason Flynn admitted to committing a crime and a court of law accepted his guilty plea.

Seems like a strange thing to happen if it was elicited by illegal means.

Good luck explaining any of that without delving into CT territory, because your fellow travelers in this thread have failed at that task quite spectacularly.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

OK, Lets nail this nonsense down.
What exactly was the alleged lie Flynn told the FBI?
Specifics please?

Charging Document
Statement of Offense
Plea Agreement

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Which BTW in and of itself was improper questioning by the FBI.
Comey brags about it. I'll have to dig up the link, but Comey admits to telling Flynn it was an informal interview and he didn't need counsel then they turn around and use it as a means to entrap him. And Comey gets a big laugh out of admitting it.

Please do.

eta more documents to be as specific as possible.

[thaiboxerken]

It's weird that Trumpanzees claim that Flynn was targeted in this unmasking when the entire reason for unmasking is to find out who the masked person is. The reality is, if anything, that a masked person was targeted for suspicious behavior. The then found out it was Flynn.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

..I'll have to dig up the link, but Comey admits to telling Flynn it was an informal interview and he didn't need counsel then they turn around and use it as a means to entrap him. And Comey gets a big laugh out of admitting it.

Even if true, Flynn did not need counsel if he simply told the truth and was not breaking the law. Why are you so intent on defending this criminal that worked against USA interest?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

I'll have to dig up the link, but Comey admits to telling Flynn it was an informal interview and he didn't need counsel then they turn around and use it as a means to entrap him.

Entrapment has a specific legal definition which does not apply here.

But aside from that, whether or not you think the above is right or just or should be legal, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly legal and is in fact very common.

So advocating for the law to be changed on those grounds is reasonable, but advocating for Flynn not to be charged because of it is not.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Ziggurat here tries to defend his position not with support, but by pretending to be ignorant. Klynn's being paid by foreign powers and hiding it is, obviously, as evidenced by his policy changes on Erdewan of Turkey and the simple fact that they had the leverage of outing him. This is basic, and Ziggurat pretending not to know it is dishonest.



Ziggurat knows that the government didn't do that because he plead guilty and promised to cooperate with the government. In his guilty plea Flynn admits to lying about exactly this. He admits to lying by falsely stating that (a) FIG did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, (b) the Turkey project was focused on improving U.S. business organizations' confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and (c) an op-ed by Flynn published in The Hill on Novermber 8, 2016 was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project.

But Ziggurat knew this already and just doesn't care about the harm to the US this caused and could have caused if Flynn had not been caught.





This is an especially dishonest argument from Ziggurat. The national security threat being investigated was Russia's attack on the US (which he doesn't care about), but not only did he pretend here that the phone call was what was being argued to be the threat under investigation when the call was found, he phrased it in a way where he can later claim he wasn't talking about that! And a way in which even if corned on the fact that the lying about the call created a national security threat, that he can claim 'Woe and bother! I never claimed it wasn't! I said the call wasn't!'

Edited by Agatha:

Edited breach of rule 12

but you'll see other Trump GOP tribals use the same technique of purposefully communicating badly, or other grievance claims, and keep shifting the focus to those. It gives the impression of a robust defense and an actual point of contention, when in reality it doesn't support their arguments. They don't care though, because it's about making lurkers and common people throw up their hands and say, 'Well, I guess all sides have a point and all sides suck just as bad!'

Note that he didn't even argue against the leverage lying about the call gave to Russia being a national security threat. It's too obviously true, so if he doesn't mention it people might lose it in the rest of the smoke screen.





This is essentially the same trick as above. I said 'notes', but he's decided to say 'transcript' because then when I supply the notes, he can claim he wanted the transcript.

Too bad. For those curious, they have already been linked to in an earlier article posted here. Here is a more direct link.





This again is shown in the guilty plea documents, which Ziggurat wants us all to believe he's ignorant of, or that they don't say that, to extend the argument longer. Again, this is to give the appearance of a robust defense when it is of zero value. *




I think everyone can see this handwave for what it is.

On evidence, reasoning, and facts, others in the thread have been doing a great job of putting up information that disproves the nonsense. However, I wanted to remind people what the Trump GOP are actually doing doesn't care, nor need, any of that. They're playing the reef. It's narrative building, and they just don't care about anything else but power.

Remember that we can't just counter their lies, but their tactics.

*EDIT: To be more clear, this tactic is making noise that just extends the argument, hoping to exhaust people's attention, and hope the truth can't shine under all the ********, that they also hope people think is coming from all sides and not just them.

I don't normally quote long posts in full, but this is good stuff. Note how this has gone on and on after this post just as predicted in the EDIT.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Entrapment has a specific legal definition which does not apply here.

But aside from that, whether or not you think the above is right or just or should be legal, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly legal and is in fact very common.

So advocating for the law to be changed on those grounds is reasonable, but advocating for Flynn not to be charged because of it is not.

Exactly. Well said.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Entrapment has a specific legal definition which does not apply here.

But aside from that, whether or not you think the above is right or just or should be legal, the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly legal and is in fact very common.

So advocating for the law to be changed on those grounds is reasonable, but advocating for Flynn not to be charged because of it is not.

It should be noted that no one defending Flynn actually wants to change the law because then it would be more difficult to railroad the poor and minorities.

They just don’t want this same system used against one of theirs.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

It should be noted that no one defending Flynn actually wants to change the law because then it would be more difficult to railroad the poor and minorities.

They just don’t want this same system used against one of theirs.

That's not true at all. I'd be happy to change the law. There's no chance of that happening, though, so I don't bother trying to make an issue out of it. I'm content to push for more modest reforms, like making the FBI actually record their interviews. I think that may be achievable.

[theprestige]

I find it ironic that the FBI is able to record everything except their own interviews.

"We have here a recording of you talking to the Russian ambassador!"

"Really? What about a recording of me talking to you?"

"We're the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We don't do that sort of thing."

[thaiboxerken]

That's what IG's are for, to investigate the investigators.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That's what IG's are for, to investigate the investigators.

That's why you gotta think one step ahead.

[thaiboxerken]

Then the person recording the recording of the recordings also need to be recorded....

[theprestige]

Turns out democracy is realizing that sooner or later you just gotta elect the guy at the top, and elect someone else if you decide you don't like him.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Turns out democracy is realizing that sooner or later you just gotta elect the guy at the top, and elect someone else if you decide you don't like him.

IOW, we're learning that laws don't apply to Trump.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Flynn's lawyers have filed a petition with the Appeals Court to have Sullivan removed from the case, and to allow the DoJ to drop the charges

The appeals court is now demanding that Sullivan respond to this petition.

https://thehill.com/regulation/49904...ismiss-charges

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's not true at all. I'd be happy to change the law. There's no chance of that happening, though, so I don't bother trying to make an issue out of it. I'm content to push for more modest reforms, like making the FBI actually record their interviews. I think that may be achievable.

Your making an issue of it in this thread when it happens to impact a Trump crony, and nowhere else for no one else’s benefit.

[Stacyhs]

Several claims by Trump regarding Flynn are fact checked here:

Quote:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, GOP distortion on Flynn; virus fiction
apnews.com › ...

5 days ago - WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his GOP allies are misrepresenting the facts behind the legal case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as they seek to allege improper behavior during the Obama administration in the presidential campaign season.

Broadly dubbing his allegations “Obamagate,” Trump points to unspecified conspiracies against himself in 2016 and suggests the disclosure of Flynn’s name as part of legal U.S. surveillance of foreign targets was criminal and motivated by partisan politics. There’s no evidence of that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Your making an issue of it in this thread when it happens to impact a Trump crony, and nowhere else for no one else’s benefit.

That's not even a grammatically correct sentence. Try again.