[Merged] Justice Deparment Drops Case Against M. Flynn - Page 5

Stacyhs · 8th May 2020, 06:14 PM

There's also the testimony of Hope Hicks:

Quote:

White House adviser Hope Hicks testified to House investigators in 2018 that Flynn had sought to enlist her and other Trump aides in backing Flynn’s false claims that he had not discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

Hicks said Flynn did so after questions about his Kislyak call were raised in a January 2017 Washington Post op-ed column by David Ignatius, according to a transcript released Thursday by the House Intelligence Committee. Flynn emailed Hicks, his then-deputy K.T. McFarland and others saying the Ignatius report “is not accurate, what can be done?” Hicks testified.

“I didn’t know that it was a lie at the time,” Hicks said, “but I think, based on the reporting that we’ve seen since then, it would appear that he was not being truthful.”

Ziggurat · 8th May 2020, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Pence was a Dully Elected Officer of the United States of America isn't there a Crime about Lying to an Official of the United States, in his Official capacity?

No. What made you think there was?

Crazy Chainsaw · 8th May 2020, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. What made you think there was?

Oh nothing really. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

fishbob · 8th May 2020, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What part of "at this point" do you not understand? Flynn didn't plead guilty "at this point". He pled guilty a long time ago, when there was a whole lot less information available about what the FBI did.

Give that poor logic circuit a break. Before you break it permanently.

fishbob · 9th May 2020, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That isn’t evidence either. And that position is based on the same FBI testimony that we are talking about. So there is still no evidence that he lied except for the testimony of the FBI.

Your claim is that Flynn was not telling the truth when he pled guilty to lying?
I think there was a Star Trek episode using this plot device.

fishbob · 9th May 2020, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A plea is not evidence. It never has been, it never will be.

A guilty plea renders evidence moot. Always has, always will.

The Great Zaganza · 9th May 2020, 12:10 AM

Law &Order - but only for others.
Trump and Flynn have privilege, literally private law that only applies to them.

fishbob · 9th May 2020, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not if there are reasons to contest that guilty plea. In particular for this case, the plea has to be fully informed. And that means that the defense has to have all Brady material (ie, material that the prosecution has that could be favorable to the defense). But they didn't. The DOJ previously withheld Brady material. The defense also alleges that the prosecutor tried to conceal from the judge certain terms of the plea agreement, which is also not OK and can be grounds for invalidating a plea.

So if Flynn's attorney had additional material documenting how much was known about Flynn lying, Flynn would have falsely pled that he wasn't lying?

fishbob · 9th May 2020, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It's evidence of what he said to Kislyak, and the FBI needs to have that established in order to show what's a lie and what's the truth. But the lie was what he said in the interview with the FBI, and the recorded call doesn't tell us anything about what he said to the FBI. The only thing that tells us what he said to the FBI is the FBI's testimony.

And he pled guilty to that.

fishbob · 9th May 2020, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Pence was a Dully Elected Officer of the United States of America isn't there a Crime about Lying to an Official of the United States, in his Official capacity?

I see what you did there.

The Great Zaganza · 9th May 2020, 12:25 AM

I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI.

a_unique_person · 9th May 2020, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob

Your claim is that Flynn was not telling the truth when he pled guilty to lying?

I think there was a Star Trek episode using this plot device.

Are you confusing it with a Seinfeld episode?

a_unique_person · 9th May 2020, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI.

TDS.

Lurch · 9th May 2020, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

TDS.

And all this sqwaking from the Trumpinatti about TDS is getting TeDiouS.

The Great Zaganza · 9th May 2020, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Lurch

And all this sqwaking from the Trumpinatti about TDS is getting TeDiouS.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 9th May 2020, 01:55 AM

So, three pages since yesterday, and it's still just all about whether or not it's true that Flynn lied to the FBI? These distraction tactics work a wonder, don't they?

Let me float a suggestion: it doesn't actually matter. He pled guilty to those charges in order not to be tried on more serious charges, and the DoJ are not contesting that he lied. The actions of the DoJ are the subject of this thread, and whether or not Flynn actually did lie is irrelevant to that.

The headline here is Barr's corruption. Let's not let this thread be totally consumed with "look! A squirrel!"

carlitos · 9th May 2020, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI.

No, I'm sure that AG Barr will be vacating Martha Stewart's charge and conviction any day now. It's entertainment-related, so probably near the top of the Trump priority list.

If this case sets precedent in any way, there are probably thousands of new appeals being lined up across the country.

johnny karate · 9th May 2020, 08:03 AM

In Ziggurat World, where a person admitting that they lied does not constitute evidence that they lied, it will be fun seeing him try to paint anyone else as a liar ever again.

Thread bookmarked for future in-face throwing.

Stacyhs · 9th May 2020, 12:17 PM

This is the second example of Barr doing Trump's will. The first is Roger Stone. I'm just hoping Judge Sullivan rejects the DOJ decision:

Quote:

Having handled cases in front of Sullivan, I personally can attest to the fact that he is fiercely independent and aggressively intolerant of government corruption, misconduct or shenanigans. Sullivan has several options now. He can order a hearing on the matter to explore a variety of questions, including why prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdrew from the case, why no prosecutor signed the motion to dismiss (apart from Shea) and how it's possible to reconcile the conflicting statements of the original prosecution team and Barr and Shea now. The ultimate question, of course, is whether it is in the interest of justice to grant the motion to dismiss. Sullivan could even order Barr to appear and explain his decisions and rationale.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ts-ncna1203351

smartcooky · 9th May 2020, 02:14 PM

I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Whether it has already be claimed, or to pre-empt such a claim, here are the facts about so called "perjury traps".

Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing, because

1. In the USA at least, there is a right to remain silent. Anyone can exercise that right, say nothing, and therefore cannot be caught in a lie.

2. In the USA at least, there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination (5A).

3. Lying is a choice. There is no candidate scenario that forces someone into lying that cannot be avoided by the above three precautions.

Flynn didn't have to answer any questions, he chose to do so.
Flynn could have invoked is 5A rights, he didn't.
Flynn didn't need to lie, he chose to do so.

Babbylonian · 9th May 2020, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap".

A "process crime" by any other name...they've just switched terminology.

The Norseman · 9th May 2020, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No other evidence has been presented by anyone, including the FBI and the DOJ.

To the public, yes. That in no way means that there is or could be further evidence not released to the public.

This is so simple.

Quote:

What other evidence that he lied to the FBI do you think even could exist?

Stuff that hasn't been made public.

Quote:

Yes. The transcript itself is not public.

That quote from the judge did not limit his statement to the transcripts only. Your hyperfocus on this one item is nonsensical.

Quote:

But the transcript isn't evidence he lied to the FBI, it's only evidence of what he talked about with the Russian ambassador.

You're now taking a general term of "transcript" and claiming it is only, and precisely, one specific transcript which suits your argument, I suppose, but again you have no basis to make such a claim.

Quote:

But that's precisely the point: he didn't have all the information. There's a bunch of Brady evidence that wasn't turned over before he made his plea.

I see this has since been addressed by others so I'll have their statement stand in place of mine.

Quote:

That's not how any of this works. If you're pleading guilty, nobody is overcoming any evidence. If you're trying to retract a guilty plea, it isn't the presumption that you're guilty which you need to overcome. You don't have to show you're innocent in order to retract a guilty plea. You can BE guilty, and even provably so, and still retract a guilty plea under certain circumstances.

You don't seem to know how the law works.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It's evidence of what he said to Kislyak, and the FBI needs to have that established in order to show what's a lie and what's the truth. But the lie was what he said in the interview with the FBI, and the recorded call doesn't tell us anything about what he said to the FBI. The only thing that tells us what he said to the FBI is the FBI's testimony.

And Flynn's agreement to that and his attorney's support of that guilty plea. Once again, if you think that this lie is the ONLY thing that the feds have against him, you're wrong. This is what the prosecution and defense agreed to; a LOWER sentence for a guilty plea.

For a white, wealthy, high-up government muckey-muck, there is no way in hell that he ever would have pled guilty in the first place; he has enough money and clout to have easily fought a single perjury charge. No... this was the minimum he could get away with without going to trial.

Originally Posted by fishbob

So if Flynn's attorney had additional material documenting how much was known about Flynn lying, Flynn would have falsely pled that he wasn't lying?

Exactly.

Stacyhs · 9th May 2020, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

A "process crime" by any other name...they've just switched terminology.

Must....defend....Trump....at...all....costs....no ....matter....what.....

Beeyon · 9th May 2020, 05:37 PM

Do the people defending this motion believe there are exactly 0 other ongoing cases involving section 1001 prosecution where this standard for "material" would be relevant to prosecution?

Barr said that he wanted to "restore confidence in the system [and show] there is only one standard of justice."

If the plain meaning of that was the goal, why wasn't Flynn announced as one of several impacted cases?

Barr definitely showed that there is exactly one standard of justice in this country: whatever the hell the president can get away with.

Ziggurat · 9th May 2020, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap".

Why are you waiting for that? I haven't made any such claim.

Quote:

Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing

Perjury traps are real. They are exceedingly rare, and involve grand jury testimony, so they certainly don't apply here. But it is an actual thing.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 10th May 2020, 05:38 AM

https://twitter.com/kpolantz/status/...029583879?s=20

Quote:

NEW: On his request to drop the case against Michael Flynn, DC US Attorney Tim Shea signed his name above his ousted predecessor's bar ID number.
It's adding to questions about how the DOJ put together the reversal and why Shea alone signed the document.

DOJ now says that the ID number flub on the Flynn filing was Shea's underling's mistake--a trial lawyer who didn't sign this motion.
A team of prosecutors within DOJ wrote the motion to dismiss Flynn's case, per an official.

Article embedded in tweet.

Drysdale · 10th May 2020, 01:58 PM

Skeptic forum....yea sure.

Exculpatory evidence illegally withheld on shaky charges at best, yet that is OK with the resident supposed skeptics here. Long as it supports the agenda.

Pathetic

johnny karate · 10th May 2020, 03:01 PM

Pleading guilty to a crime = “shaky charges”.

Bob001 · 10th May 2020, 03:11 PM

The question yet to be answered: What did Trump know? What did he direct?

Quote:

The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.

And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...onceal/611377/

Bob001 · 10th May 2020, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Skeptic forum....yea sure.

Exculpatory evidence illegally withheld on shaky charges at best, yet that is OK with the resident supposed skeptics here. Long as it supports the agenda.

Pathetic

It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that.

johnny karate · 10th May 2020, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that.

Also not illegal.

But most of the words in his post were spelled correctly, so good job there.

eeyore1954 · 11th May 2020, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Zig - I'm afraid you missed this question from a bit earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
What do you think perjury means?

Definition of perjury from your link. That "or" may have some bearing...
But to be honest this is almost as bad as trying to understand tax law text.

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

pgwenthold · 11th May 2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Whether it has already be claimed, or to pre-empt such a claim, here are the facts about so called "perjury traps".

Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing, because

1. In the USA at least, there is a right to remain silent. Anyone can exercise that right, say nothing, and therefore cannot be caught in a lie.

2. In the USA at least, there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination (5A).

3. Lying is a choice. There is no candidate scenario that forces someone into lying that cannot be avoided by the above three precautions.

Flynn didn't have to answer any questions, he chose to do so.
Flynn could have invoked is 5A rights, he didn't.
Flynn didn't need to lie, he chose to do so.

My understanding is that the DoJ position is that, yeah, he lied but it didn't matter because there was no reason to be questioning him in the first place.

One of the questions I have heard from legal analysis has been, it is basically the position of the DoJ is effectively that the FBI can't investigate someone for having links to Russia unless they have evidence that the person has links to Russia.

This has been the GOP position on a lot of things lately. "There's no evidence of wrong-doing, so you can't investigate"

pgwenthold · 11th May 2020, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Must....defend....Trump....at...all....costs....no ....matter....what.....

I saw on Twitter yesterday that Nikki Haley was been exposed having sent classified material using a private email account. That makes the number of Trumpets that have done so something like 6.

The response was, yeah, but did she delete her emails to try to hide it?

Seriously, the unverified assertion that there was classified information in the deleted emails is actually worse than having been shown to have sent classified information with a private account.

pgwenthold · 11th May 2020, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that.

His plea agreement also states that was doing so willfully and knowingly.

a_unique_person · 11th May 2020, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

My understanding is that the DoJ position is that, yeah, he lied but it didn't matter because there was no reason to be questioning him in the first place.

One of the questions I have heard from legal analysis has been, it is basically the position of the DoJ is effectively that the FBI can't investigate someone for having links to Russia unless they have evidence that the person has links to Russia.

This has been the GOP position on a lot of things lately. "There's no evidence of wrong-doing, so you can't investigate"

That is their logic and it belongs in the list of legal strategies only the rich and/or well connected could ever use. For us mere mortals judges throw out that reasoning in an instant.

Stacyhs · 11th May 2020, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

That is their logic and it belongs in the list of legal strategies only the rich and/or well connected could ever use. For us mere mortals judges throw out that reasoning in an instant.

Hopefully Judge Sullivan tosses the DOJ request out on its arse.

Allen773 · 11th May 2020, 03:49 PM

Wow, I’m so grateful that partisan hack and Iran-Contra cleanup mam William Barr is in charge of DoJ!

Ziggurat · 11th May 2020, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Hopefully Judge Sullivan tosses the DOJ request out on its arse.

Want to make an avatar bet about that?

Stacyhs · 11th May 2020, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Want to make an avatar bet about that?

Nope. I said "hopefully". I've learned not to bet on anything Trump related after the 2016 election. If that orange POS can be elected president, nothing is impossible.

8th May 2020, 06:45 PM	#162
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,009	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw Pence was a Dully Elected Officer of the United States of America isn't there a Crime about Lying to an Official of the United States, in his Official capacity? No. What made you think there was?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th May 2020, 11:58 PM	#164
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What part of "at this point" do you not understand? Flynn didn't plead guilty "at this point". He pled guilty a long time ago, when there was a whole lot less information available about what the FBI did. Give that poor logic circuit a break. Before you break it permanently.
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:02 AM	#165
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That isn’t evidence either. And that position is based on the same FBI testimony that we are talking about. So there is still no evidence that he lied except for the testimony of the FBI. Your claim is that Flynn was not telling the truth when he pled guilty to lying? I think there was a Star Trek episode using this plot device.
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:05 AM	#166
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Ziggurat A plea is not evidence. It never has been, it never will be. A guilty plea renders evidence moot. Always has, always will.
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:10 AM	#167
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,390	Law &Order - but only for others. Trump and Flynn have privilege, literally private law that only applies to them.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

8th May 2020, 06:14 PM	#161
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,452	There's also the testimony of Hope Hicks: Quote: White House adviser Hope Hicks testified to House investigators in 2018 that Flynn had sought to enlist her and other Trump aides in backing Flynn’s false claims that he had not discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Hicks said Flynn did so after questions about his Kislyak call were raised in a January 2017 Washington Post op-ed column by David Ignatius, according to a transcript released Thursday by the House Intelligence Committee. Flynn emailed Hicks, his then-deputy K.T. McFarland and others saying the Ignatius report “is not accurate, what can be done?” Hicks testified. “I didn’t know that it was a lie at the time,” Hicks said, “but I think, based on the reporting that we’ve seen since then, it would appear that he was not being truthful.”

8th May 2020, 07:05 PM	#163
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,465	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. What made you think there was? Oh nothing really. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

9th May 2020, 12:15 AM	#168
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Not if there are reasons to contest that guilty plea. In particular for this case, the plea has to be fully informed. And that means that the defense has to have all Brady material (ie, material that the prosecution has that could be favorable to the defense). But they didn't. The DOJ previously withheld Brady material. The defense also alleges that the prosecutor tried to conceal from the judge certain terms of the plea agreement, which is also not OK and can be grounds for invalidating a plea. So if Flynn's attorney had additional material documenting how much was known about Flynn lying, Flynn would have falsely pled that he wasn't lying?
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:21 AM	#169
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. It's evidence of what he said to Kislyak, and the FBI needs to have that established in order to show what's a lie and what's the truth. But the lie was what he said in the interview with the FBI, and the recorded call doesn't tell us anything about what he said to the FBI. The only thing that tells us what he said to the FBI is the FBI's testimony. And he pled guilty to that.
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:22 AM	#170
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,269	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw Pence was a Dully Elected Officer of the United States of America isn't there a Crime about Lying to an Official of the United States, in his Official capacity? I see what you did there.
	__________________ "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.

9th May 2020, 12:25 AM	#171
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,390	I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

9th May 2020, 12:30 AM	#172
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 42,986	Originally Posted by fishbob Your claim is that Flynn was not telling the truth when he pled guilty to lying? I think there was a Star Trek episode using this plot device. Are you confusing it with a Seinfeld episode?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

9th May 2020, 12:31 AM	#173
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 42,986	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI. TDS.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

9th May 2020, 01:11 AM	#174
Lurch Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Ottawa Posts: 1,638	Originally Posted by a_unique_person TDS. And all this sqwaking from the Trumpinatti about TDS is getting TeDiouS.

9th May 2020, 01:33 AM	#175
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,390	Originally Posted by Lurch And all this sqwaking from the Trumpinatti about TDS is getting TeDiouS.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

9th May 2020, 01:55 AM	#176
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 30,995	So, three pages since yesterday, and it's still just all about whether or not it's true that Flynn lied to the FBI? These distraction tactics work a wonder, don't they? Let me float a suggestion: it doesn't actually matter. He pled guilty to those charges in order not to be tried on more serious charges, and the DoJ are not contesting that he lied. The actions of the DoJ are the subject of this thread, and whether or not Flynn actually did lie is irrelevant to that. The headline here is Barr's corruption. Let's not let this thread be totally consumed with "look! A squirrel!"
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

9th May 2020, 04:09 AM	#177
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA! USA! Posts: 22,779	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I am wondering what makes the Flynn case so unique that his and only his case should be dropped but not every other case in which someone is charged with lying to the FBI. No, I'm sure that AG Barr will be vacating Martha Stewart's charge and conviction any day now. It's entertainment-related, so probably near the top of the Trump priority list. If this case sets precedent in any way, there are probably thousands of new appeals being lined up across the country.

9th May 2020, 08:03 AM	#178
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,227	In Ziggurat World, where a person admitting that they lied does not constitute evidence that they lied, it will be fun seeing him try to paint anyone else as a liar ever again. Thread bookmarked for future in-face throwing.

9th May 2020, 12:17 PM	#179
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,452	This is the second example of Barr doing Trump's will. The first is Roger Stone. I'm just hoping Judge Sullivan rejects the DOJ decision: Quote: Having handled cases in front of Sullivan, I personally can attest to the fact that he is fiercely independent and aggressively intolerant of government corruption, misconduct or shenanigans. Sullivan has several options now. He can order a hearing on the matter to explore a variety of questions, including why prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdrew from the case, why no prosecutor signed the motion to dismiss (apart from Shea) and how it's possible to reconcile the conflicting statements of the original prosecution team and Barr and Shea now. The ultimate question, of course, is whether it is in the interest of justice to grant the motion to dismiss. Sullivan could even order Barr to appear and explain his decisions and rationale. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ts-ncna1203351

9th May 2020, 02:14 PM	#180
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,505	I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Whether it has already be claimed, or to pre-empt such a claim, here are the facts about so called "perjury traps". Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing, because 1. In the USA at least, there is a right to remain silent. Anyone can exercise that right, say nothing, and therefore cannot be caught in a lie. 2. In the USA at least, there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination (5A). 3. Lying is a choice. There is no candidate scenario that forces someone into lying that cannot be avoided by the above three precautions. Flynn didn't have to answer any questions, he chose to do so. Flynn could have invoked is 5A rights, he didn't. Flynn didn't need to lie, he chose to do so.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 9th May 2020 at 02:16 PM.

9th May 2020, 02:16 PM	#181
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,424	Originally Posted by smartcooky I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". A "process crime" by any other name...they've just switched terminology.

9th May 2020, 02:20 PM	#182
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No other evidence has been presented by anyone, including the FBI and the DOJ. To the public, yes. That in no way means that there is or could be further evidence not released to the public. This is so simple. Quote: What other evidence that he lied to the FBI do you think even could exist? Stuff that hasn't been made public. Quote: Yes. The transcript itself is not public. That quote from the judge did not limit his statement to the transcripts only. Your hyperfocus on this one item is nonsensical. Quote: But the transcript isn't evidence he lied to the FBI, it's only evidence of what he talked about with the Russian ambassador. You're now taking a general term of "transcript" and claiming it is only, and precisely, one specific transcript which suits your argument, I suppose, but again you have no basis to make such a claim. Quote: But that's precisely the point: he didn't have all the information. There's a bunch of Brady evidence that wasn't turned over before he made his plea. I see this has since been addressed by others so I'll have their statement stand in place of mine. Quote: That's not how any of this works. If you're pleading guilty, nobody is overcoming any evidence. If you're trying to retract a guilty plea, it isn't the presumption that you're guilty which you need to overcome. You don't have to show you're innocent in order to retract a guilty plea. You can BE guilty, and even provably so, and still retract a guilty plea under certain circumstances. You don't seem to know how the law works. Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. It's evidence of what he said to Kislyak, and the FBI needs to have that established in order to show what's a lie and what's the truth. But the lie was what he said in the interview with the FBI, and the recorded call doesn't tell us anything about what he said to the FBI. The only thing that tells us what he said to the FBI is the FBI's testimony. And Flynn's agreement to that and his attorney's support of that guilty plea. Once again, if you think that this lie is the ONLY thing that the feds have against him, you're wrong. This is what the prosecution and defense agreed to; a LOWER sentence for a guilty plea. For a white, wealthy, high-up government muckey-muck, there is no way in hell that he ever would have pled guilty in the first place; he has enough money and clout to have easily fought a single perjury charge. No... this was the minimum he could get away with without going to trial. Originally Posted by fishbob So if Flynn's attorney had additional material documenting how much was known about Flynn lying, Flynn would have falsely pled that he wasn't lying? Exactly.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

9th May 2020, 03:01 PM	#183
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,452	Originally Posted by Babbylonian A "process crime" by any other name...they've just switched terminology. Must....defend....Trump....at...all....costs....no ....matter....what.....

9th May 2020, 05:37 PM	#184
Beeyon Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 457	Do the people defending this motion believe there are exactly 0 other ongoing cases involving section 1001 prosecution where this standard for "material" would be relevant to prosecution? Barr said that he wanted to "restore confidence in the system [and show] there is only one standard of justice." If the plain meaning of that was the goal, why wasn't Flynn announced as one of several impacted cases? Barr definitely showed that there is exactly one standard of justice in this country: whatever the hell the president can get away with.
Beeyon Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 457

9th May 2020, 06:41 PM	#185
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,009	Originally Posted by smartcooky I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Why are you waiting for that? I haven't made any such claim. Quote: Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing Perjury traps are real. They are exceedingly rare, and involve grand jury testimony, so they certainly don't apply here. But it is an actual thing.
	__________________ "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

10th May 2020, 05:38 AM	#186
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 30,995	https://twitter.com/kpolantz/status/...029583879?s=20 Quote: NEW: On his request to drop the case against Michael Flynn, DC US Attorney Tim Shea signed his name above his ousted predecessor's bar ID number. It's adding to questions about how the DOJ put together the reversal and why Shea alone signed the document. DOJ now says that the ID number flub on the Flynn filing was Shea's underling's mistake--a trial lawyer who didn't sign this motion. A team of prosecutors within DOJ wrote the motion to dismiss Flynn's case, per an official. Article embedded in tweet.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

10th May 2020, 01:58 PM	#187
Drysdale Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,140	Skeptic forum....yea sure. Exculpatory evidence illegally withheld on shaky charges at best, yet that is OK with the resident supposed skeptics here. Long as it supports the agenda. Pathetic
	__________________ “Everything government touches turns to crap.” Ringo Starr

10th May 2020, 03:01 PM	#188
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,227	Pleading guilty to a crime = “shaky charges”.

10th May 2020, 03:11 PM	#189
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,371	The question yet to be answered: What did Trump know? What did he direct? Quote: The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing. And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...onceal/611377/

10th May 2020, 03:14 PM	#190
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,371	Originally Posted by Drysdale Skeptic forum....yea sure. Exculpatory evidence illegally withheld on shaky charges at best, yet that is OK with the resident supposed skeptics here. Long as it supports the agenda. Pathetic It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that.

10th May 2020, 03:18 PM	#191
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,227	Originally Posted by Bob001 It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that. Also not illegal. But most of the words in his post were spelled correctly, so good job there.

11th May 2020, 01:19 PM	#192
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,740	Originally Posted by d4m10n Zig - I'm afraid you missed this question from a bit earlier. Quote: Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post What do you think perjury means? Definition of perjury from your link. That "or" may have some bearing... But to be honest this is almost as bad as trying to understand tax law text. having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
eeyore1954 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,740	Last edited by eeyore1954; 11th May 2020 at 01:21 PM.

11th May 2020, 02:34 PM	#193
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,057	Originally Posted by smartcooky I'm waiting for Zig or someone of his ilk to claim that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Whether it has already be claimed, or to pre-empt such a claim, here are the facts about so called "perjury traps". Perjury traps traps are like unicorns - there is no such thing, because 1. In the USA at least, there is a right to remain silent. Anyone can exercise that right, say nothing, and therefore cannot be caught in a lie. 2. In the USA at least, there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination (5A). 3. Lying is a choice. There is no candidate scenario that forces someone into lying that cannot be avoided by the above three precautions. Flynn didn't have to answer any questions, he chose to do so. Flynn could have invoked is 5A rights, he didn't. Flynn didn't need to lie, he chose to do so. My understanding is that the DoJ position is that, yeah, he lied but it didn't matter because there was no reason to be questioning him in the first place. One of the questions I have heard from legal analysis has been, it is basically the position of the DoJ is effectively that the FBI can't investigate someone for having links to Russia unless they have evidence that the person has links to Russia. This has been the GOP position on a lot of things lately. "There's no evidence of wrong-doing, so you can't investigate"
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

11th May 2020, 02:38 PM	#194
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,057	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Must....defend....Trump....at...all....costs....no ....matter....what..... I saw on Twitter yesterday that Nikki Haley was been exposed having sent classified material using a private email account. That makes the number of Trumpets that have done so something like 6. The response was, yeah, but did she delete her emails to try to hide it? Seriously, the unverified assertion that there was classified information in the deleted emails is actually worse than having been shown to have sent classified information with a private account.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

11th May 2020, 02:40 PM	#195
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,057	Originally Posted by Bob001 It's not exculpatory. The agents' notes don't change what Flynn actually said to them. He told a federal judge that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. Nothing changes that. His plea agreement also states that was doing so willfully and knowingly.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets