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 20th May 2020, 02:44 AM   #361
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,572
https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/stat...803364865?s=20

Quote:
NEWS: Judge Sullivan just set a series of deadlines in the Michael Flynn case and the government's motion to dismiss the Mueller-era guilty plea, with in-court oral arguments set for July 16.
Document embedded in tweet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:56 AM   #362
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
If the contents of that phone call included deal making or commitments, then it was criminal.
I have seen no credible allegations that it did, so what's your point?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:19 AM   #363
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,806
Zig, you basic point seems to be that you, from the amount of information you have access to don't think that there is a case against Flynn.

I think you are not accounting for the fact that you are probably not a trained counter-intelligence officer and certainty don't have access to all the facts.

What Flynn did was enough for Investigators, Prosecutors and two Judges to have a case against him.
Why do you think you, or me for that matter, know more than they do?
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
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 20th May 2020, 07:32 AM   #364
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Zig, you basic point seems to be that you, from the amount of information you have access to don't think that there is a case against Flynn.
No, that's not my point. But people keep trying to invent new crimes for Flynn to have committed, such as a Logan act violation during his phone call. Even the original prosecutor never made that allegation.

Quote:
I think you are not accounting for the fact that you are probably not a trained counter-intelligence officer and certainty don't have access to all the facts.
Guess who else doesn't have access to all the facts? The judge. Do you know why? Because the FBI "lost" the original 302's, and the interview wasn't recorded to begin with because the FBI is dysfunctional and inexcusably makes that their normal policy.

Quote:
What Flynn did was enough for Investigators, Prosecutors and two Judges to have a case against him.
Why do you think you, or me for that matter, know more than they do?
Why do you simply assume that those in positions of power will always exercise that power appropriately?

No, that's not really fair of me to say. You only make that assumption if they're acting against Trump. You're perfectly willing to get skeptical when anyone acts in a way that might benefit Trump.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:17 AM   #365
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,806
Pure Bayesian Statistics tells you to be skeptical about anything Trump has said and done.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
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 20th May 2020, 08:19 AM   #366
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why do you simply assume that those in positions of power will always exercise that power appropriately?
Do you believe Flynn, Trump, and Barr are exercising their powers appropriately?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:19 AM   #367
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Pure Bayesian Statistics tells you to be skeptical about anything Trump has said and done.
Nothing I've said in this thread depends in any way on what Trump has said or done, so I don't know what relevance you think that has.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:24 AM   #368
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you believe Flynn, Trump, and Barr are exercising their powers appropriately?
Flynn isn't exercising any power right now, because he has no power. When he was working for Trump, talking to the Russian ambassador was appropriate. You will have to be more specific about what exercise of power you're talking about with respect to Trump and Barr for me to give a meaningful answer.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:31 AM   #369
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Flynn isn't exercising any power right now, because he has no power. When he was working for Trump, talking to the Russian ambassador was appropriate. You will have to be more specific about what exercise of power you're talking about with respect to Trump and Barr for me to give a meaningful answer.
Then you will have to be more specific as well, because you have not presented anything about the FBI abusing their power either. I know you've fallen down the right wing conspiracy theory hole, but not all of us are that blinded by partisanship.

And, frankly, I would pit the FBI's reputation and professionalism against Trump's, Flynn's, and Barr's any day of the week.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:47 AM   #370
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Then you will have to be more specific as well, because you have not presented anything about the FBI abusing their power either. I know you've fallen down the right wing conspiracy theory hole, but not all of us are that blinded by partisanship.

And, frankly, I would pit the FBI's reputation and professionalism against Trump's, Flynn's, and Barr's any day of the week.
This isn't a contest of reputations, that isn't how it works. The FBI's reputation has to stand on its own, if you want to defend the prosecution of Flynn on that basis. But the FBI's reputation, taken on its own terms, is actually pretty bad. Even confining ourselves just to the Trump-related investigations, we've got the FISA abuses to launch unjustified spying on US citizens, we've got McCabe not only leaking to the press but also lying about it under oath, we've got conflicts of interests with senior FBI agents tied to the Clinton campaign, we've got the FBI not only continuing its unjustifiable policy of not recording interviews but actually losing the original 302 that's the basis for the charges against Flynn.

Why you think this is a reputation worth staking anything on is beyond me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:52 AM   #371
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why you think this is a reputation worth staking anything on is beyond me.
You were the one who staged this as a "he said, they said" with your argument that we only have the FBI's word that Flynn lied to them, did you not? (Ignoring that Flynn admitted, under oath, that he lied to the FBI.)
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:59 AM   #372
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You were the one who staged this as a "he said, they said" with your argument that we only have the FBI's word that Flynn lied to them, did you not?
Yes. And the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means it's not a situation where you just go with whoever you find marginally more believable.

Quote:
(Ignoring that Flynn admitted, under oath, that he lied to the FBI.)
Do you not understand how little that actually means about his actual guilt? People plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn't commit.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:01 AM   #373
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. And the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means it's not a situation where you just go with whoever you find marginally more believable.

Do you not understand how little that actually means about his actual guilt? People plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn't commit.
I asked this before but you failed to respond: If a guilty plea is not evidence in a court of law, on what basis do they determine conviction?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:09 AM   #374
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I asked this before but you failed to respond: If a guilty plea is not evidence in a court of law, on what basis do they determine conviction?
I did respond. It's not evidence, it's a procedural move. Just like a not guilty plea isn't evidence. A guilty plea bypasses the need for the court to evaluate evidence. That's why a guilty plea doesn't go to the jury. The jury, not the judge, are the ones who have to weigh competing evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:12 AM   #375
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But people keep trying to invent new crimes for Flynn to have committed
Perhaps because they're falling for your false suggestion that the FBI can only investigate crimes.

The NSA misrepresenting conversations with Russian officials, to the VP, is a legitimate basis investigation.

If you ever get bored attacking weak-man arguments, feel free to try to deal with that fact.
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 20th May 2020, 09:25 AM   #376
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I asked this before but you failed to respond: If a guilty plea is not evidence in a court of law, on what basis do they determine conviction?
There is something to what he's saying. The plea process basically skips the whole "evidence" weighing process, and is generally not admissible if the plea is somehow withdrawn.

Originally Posted by Fedeal Rules of Evidence
Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:

(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410

That said, there is an explicit exception for using the plea as evidence for perjury. I don't believe a dismissal with prejudice will protect Flynn from later perjury charges.
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 20th May 2020, 09:25 AM   #377
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,806
"reasonable doubt" becomes "reasonable suspicion" in the counter-intelligence.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
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 20th May 2020, 09:36 AM   #378
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
There is something to what he's saying. The plea process basically skips the whole "evidence" weighing process, and is generally not admissible if the plea is somehow withdrawn.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410

That said, there is an explicit exception for using the plea as evidence for perjury. I don't believe a dismissal with prejudice will protect Flynn from later perjury charges.
To which I responded with
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Source

Quote:
In other respects, guilty pleas have the same consequences as guilty verdicts. The judgments of conviction carry the identical evidentiary value and ramifications for future proceedingsóincluding the same potential for sentence enhancement and for forfeiture of assets. In many jurisdictions, a guilty plea or guilty verdict fore-closes defendants from suing their lawyers for malpractice.
A conviction by guilty plea is identical to a conviction by jury trial. IANAL, but I take that to mean that if someone pleads guilty to a murder, the plea and thus conviction from that trial may be used as evidence if someone else in a different trial is being accused of the same murder.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:55 AM   #379
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Perhaps because they're falling for your false suggestion that the FBI can only investigate crimes.
Uh, no. You aren't following what people have been saying in this thread. For example:

Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
If the contents of that phone call included deal making or commitments, then it was criminal.
That's an invented crime. It's not real.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:58 AM   #380
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
A conviction by guilty plea is identical to a conviction by jury trial. IANAL, but I take that to mean that if someone pleads guilty to a murder, the plea and thus conviction from that trial may be used as evidence if someone else in a different trial is being accused of the same murder.
Sure, but it's the conviction, not the plea, which becomes the evidence. And the fact that it's explicitly no different than a jury verdict of guilty should have been the hint that it's the conviction which is legally relevant and not the plea.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 10:13 AM   #381
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
To which I responded with A conviction by guilty plea is identical to a conviction by jury trial. IANAL, but I take that to mean that if someone pleads guilty to a murder, the plea and thus conviction from that trial may be used as evidence if someone else in a different trial is being accused of the same murder.
The way I understand it, if someone pleas guilty. The plea is...

Not evidence for the plead charges if the plea is withdrawn.

Potentially evidence for another trial involving false statements included in the plea.

Definitive evidence of guilt in future proceedings after the conclusion of the plead proceedings.

Evidence of guilt in ordinary life, but such that one keeps in mind that some innocent people do plead guilty to avoid a worse fate (e.g. Alvarez v. Brownsville).
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 20th May 2020, 10:23 AM   #382
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
I'm not falling for it. You're leading people in circles over this "crime" business when the FBI was investigating him over counter intelligence.

Originally Posted by Ziggurate, post 314
Why was Flynn targeted? His phone call with the Russian ambassador, the subject of the interview, wasn't criminal, and the FBI knew it wasn't when they interviewed him. In fact, the interview served no legitimate purpose at all.
You are arguing that a top echelon national security figure lying to another top echelon national security figure regarding private conversations with an agent of one of our greater national security threats should not be investigated by the agency charged with investigating domestic national security threats. That's just silly.

Last edited by Beeyon; 20th May 2020 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Added quote attribution
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 20th May 2020, 10:57 AM   #383
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
I'm not falling for it. You're leading people in circles over this "crime" business when the FBI was investigating him over counter intelligence.
How does that validate fishbob's claim? It doesn't. He made a bull **** claim, you aren't disputing that it's bull ****, that claim didn't originate with me, but somehow I'm to blame for calling it out as bull ******

No. It's bull ****.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:07 PM   #384
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How does that validate fishbob's claim? It doesn't. He made a bull **** claim, you aren't disputing that it's bull ****, that claim didn't originate with me, but somehow I'm to blame for calling it out as bull ******

No. It's bull ****.

Interlocutor 1: We should use more pesticide because we're losing all our crops!
Interlocutor 2: But there's a horrible drought going on that is the cause of the crops losses. Pesticide won't help.
Interlocutor 1: Pesticide has been shown to be extremely effective at selectively killing the kinds of pests who attack our crops.
Interlocutor 2: That really doesn't address the drought issue.
Interlocutor 1: No one has ever shown a downside to pesticide.
Interlocutor 3: Pesticide causes early onset alzheimers disease.
Interlocutor 1: There's no evidence of pesticide causing early onset alzheimers!
Interlocutor 3: Yes there is.
Interlocutor 1: Why does everyone keep making up lies about pesticide?
Interlocutor 2: Perhaps you bear some responsibility because you keep pushing pesticide in order to avoid discussing the drought?
Interlocuter 1: That doesn't mean that pesticide alzheimers! We all know pesticide doesn't cause alzheimers!

One can be "right" while very much in the wrong.
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 20th May 2020, 12:19 PM   #385
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
One can be "right" while very much in the wrong.
This is ridiculous.

In your hypothetical, it presumably matters what the "interlocutors" talk about because presumably they have to take action, since it's "our" crops so they're really farmers and not just "interlocutors". Prioritization is important for them because they must act fast enough.

But we don't have to do anything, and there is no time pressure. Frankly, we can't do anything. So it doesn't matter which of the various topics we choose to address. Addressing something that someone else doesn't want to address isn't wrong, in any sense of the word.

tl;dr: stop trying to be a topic Karen.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 01:08 PM   #386
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
tl;dr: stop trying to be a topic Karen.
Yeah, you don't know anything about steering the conversation.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Originally Posted by Beeyon
Let's assume that there was no Logan act issue with the call.
Let's not. Let's actually argue that out, if you think the Logan act might apply.
---

Whether or not there was an appropriate basis to the investigation is the crux of the DoJ's motion to dismiss and an underlying assumption in Zig's argument that the documents were Brady material. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested.
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 20th May 2020, 01:08 PM   #387
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
I was re-reading Flynn's under oath transcript when he made his guilty plea for another reason when I found these parts relevant to the current discussion.

Quote:
THE COURT: Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on
which you were interviewed by the FBI?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by maintaining your
guilty plea and continuing with sentencing, you will give up your
right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were
interviewed?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

Quote:
THE COURT: Your sentencing memorandum also states that
you pled guilty before certain, quote, revelations that certain
FBI officials involved in the January the 24th interview were
themselves being investigated for misconduct, end quote. Do you
seek an opportunity to withdraw your plea in light of those
revelations?
THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.

Quote:
THE COURT: All right. Are you satisfied with the
services provided by your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I am.
THE COURT: In certain special circumstances, I have over
the years appointed an independent attorney to speak with a
defendant, review the defendant's file, and conduct necessary
research to render a second opinion for a defendant. Do you want
the Court to consider appointing an independent attorney for you in this case to give you a second opinion?
THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.
Flynn is clearly a man of his word, especially under oath.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 01:18 PM   #388
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,807
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I was re-reading Flynn's under oath transcript when he made his guilty plea for another reason when I found these parts relevant to the current discussion.









Flynn is clearly a man of his word, especially under oath.
Damn perjury trap!
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 20th May 2020, 02:46 PM   #389
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
I've been doing far more reading about this than I probably should have. I haven't found any place where Flynn is arguing to withdraw his guilty plea because he is actually innocent of the crime.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 02:50 PM   #390
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I've been doing far more reading about this than I probably should have. I haven't found any place where Flynn is arguing to withdraw his guilty plea because he is actually innocent of the crime.
Why does that surprise you? Innocence isn't grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea, so why would you expect him to argue that when it's not an argument that matters to the court? As I said, it's a procedural step. You need a procedural reason to withdraw a guilty plea.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 02:50 PM   #391
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 457
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I've been doing far more reading about this than I probably should have. I haven't found any place where Flynn is arguing to withdraw his guilty plea because he is actually innocent of the crime.
Of course not. He learned his lesson about making false statements to the government.
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 20th May 2020, 03:48 PM   #392
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why does that surprise you? Innocence isn't grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea, so why would you expect him to argue that when it's not an argument that matters to the court? As I said, it's a procedural step. You need a procedural reason to withdraw a guilty plea.
Are you sure about that? Did you read the transcript I've now linked twice? The judge was very insistent that Flynn not plead guilty if he were not, in fact, guilty. Over and over again.

I don't think you have a very good handle on the situation.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 04:01 PM   #393
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 12,117
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Are you sure about that? Did you read the transcript I've now linked twice? The judge was very insistent that Flynn not plead guilty if he were not, in fact, guilty. Over and over again.

I don't think you have a very good handle on the situation.

The remedy is apparent. Let Justice drop the case; then send Flynn to prison for 10 years for perjury in federal court.
Bob001 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 20th May 2020, 04:15 PM   #394
Bubba
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,689
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This isn't a contest of reputations, that isn't how it works. The FBI's reputation has to stand on its own, if you want to defend the prosecution of Flynn on that basis. But the FBI's reputation, taken on its own terms, is actually pretty bad. Even confining ourselves just to the Trump-related investigations, we've got the FISA abuses to launch unjustified spying on US citizens, we've got McCabe not only leaking to the press but also lying about it under oath, we've got conflicts of interests with senior FBI agents tied to the Clinton campaign, we've got the FBI not only continuing its unjustifiable policy of not recording interviews but actually losing the original 302 that's the basis for the charges against Flynn.

Why you think this is a reputation worth staking anything on is beyond me.

Plus that FBI attorney who altered a crucial document before giving it to the FISA Judge. I put his name in another ISF thread a couple weeks back.
Bubba 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 20th May 2020, 06:05 PM   #395
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. And the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means it's not a situation where you just go with whoever you find marginally more believable.



Do you not understand how little that actually means about his actual guilt? People plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn't commit.
So Flynn is as ignorant as some poor, uneducated hoodlum from off the street, and his lawyers are equally eager to go along with the prosecutors. You really think a fighter like a General would be such a pushover if he believed himself innocent? Between a world-wise mover and shaker like Flynn, and his high-priced help, you sure do like the "easily bamboozled goober" gambit.

You know, the simpler explanation might just be that they saw how bad it was for Flynn, and leapt to the far more amenable lying charge, knowing how lucky he was to get such light treatment.
Lurch 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 20th May 2020, 06:15 PM   #396
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
Plus that FBI attorney who altered a crucial document before giving it to the FISA Judge. I put his name in another ISF thread a couple weeks back.
What, the one who was fired and whose alteration was found to have no barring on the warrantís approval? Or was there another one?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:21 PM   #397
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Are you sure about that? Did you read the transcript I've now linked twice? The judge was very insistent that Flynn not plead guilty if he were not, in fact, guilty. Over and over again.

I don't think you have a very good handle on the situation.
The judge's insistance on him being guilty before accepting the plea doesn't show that being not guilty is a reason to withdraw the plea. Quite the reverse: it is because you cannot withdraw a guilty plea on the basis of later claiming innocence that it's a problem to let innocent defendants plead guilty. The grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea are fairly limited, which is why the motion to withdraw his guilty plea does not contain any assertion of his innocence: that simply isn't relevant to the motion.

And yes, I'm sure of that. Go look it up, if you don't believe me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:31 PM   #398
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What, the one who was fired and whose alteration was found to have no barring on the warrantís approval? Or was there another one?
You have that wrong.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/0...79..200123.pdf

"The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court's authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid."
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:54 PM   #399
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,225
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have that wrong.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/0...79..200123.pdf

"The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court's authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid."
Thatís the governmentís conclusion about the Courtís authorization, not the Courtís conclusion. This section is merely explaining the governmentís position. The actual purpose of this document appears to be instructions to the government on what it needs to do next to make or further its case, which is at the end.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:16 PM   #400
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,504
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Thatís the governmentís conclusion about the Courtís authorization, not the Courtís conclusion.
Your claim wasn't to the court's conclusion either. Hell, it wasn't the IG's conclusion either, you misrepresented even that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 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.