ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags court cases , donald trump , Michael Flynn , perjury cases , Robert Mueller , William Barr

Reply
Old 26th May 2020, 07:41 PM   #521
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Who do you think you're impressing with all this duck and weaving? You assert the possible the value of the draft 302, I say respond regarding the expected value of the draft 302, and you respond with the paperwork we should expect. What evidence do we have that the 302 will tell us anything new? Why don't you want the Flynn Lunch Receipt? It could possibly prove literally anything.
Why don't I want the Flynn lunch receipt? Because that's not the direction of burden of proof in criminal law. It's not a symmetric situation, that is by design, and that is the way it should be. How could you make such a fundamental mistake?

And given that the 302 is the ONLY record of the interview, it's rather critical that it be as reliable as possible. It isn't reliable to begin with, if we're being honest, but we should still strive for the most reliable version possible. And what we have... isn't.
__________________
"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 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 26th May 2020, 08:00 PM   #522
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And given that the 302 is the ONLY record of the interview, it's rather critical that it be as reliable as possible. It isn't reliable to begin with, if we're being honest, but we should still strive for the most reliable version possible. And what we have... isn't.
And yet, no one with first hand knowledge is claiming that it is wrong or has been substantially altered.
__________________
"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 26th May 2020, 09:52 PM   #523
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why don't I want the Flynn lunch receipt? Because that's not the direction of burden of proof in criminal law. It's not a symmetric situation, that is by design, and that is the way it should be. How could you make such a fundamental mistake?
You could have fooled me that you care about the burden of proof. Against the evidence of the final 302 and corroborating interview notes, you're countering with a draft 302 that no one actually possesses. You're effectively arguing that the potential of evidence is evidence. That's no different than saying that we know that Strozk had a dry cleaning ticket, and if we only could find it, we could verify whether or not Obama wrote "Nail Flynn, no matter how innocent" on that ticket.

Quote:
And given that the 302 is the ONLY record of the interview, it's rather critical that it be as reliable as possible. It isn't reliable to begin with, if we're being honest, but we should still strive for the most reliable version possible. And what we have... isn't.
Only record OTHER than contemporary and corroborating interview notes.
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 26th May 2020, 09:59 PM   #524
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
You could have fooled me that you care about the burden of proof. Against the evidence of the final 302 and corroborating interview notes, you're countering with a draft 302 that no one actually possesses. You're effectively arguing that the potential of evidence is evidence. That's no different than saying that we know that Strozk had a dry cleaning ticket, and if we only could find it, we could verify whether or not Obama wrote "Nail Flynn, no matter how innocent" on that ticket.



Only record OTHER than contemporary and corroborating interview notes.
Exoneration of the gaps.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 01:59 AM   #525
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Exoneration of the gaps.
Well put.
__________________
"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 27th May 2020, 06:24 AM   #526
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Justice Deparment Drops Case Against M. Flynn

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well put.


Indeed. Reminds me of the appeal to magic language of sovereign citizens, or the appeal to magic super-silent explosives of 9/11 truthers. At heart, itís just conspiracy theory and flooding the zone with enough BS that some significant percentage of people either believe it or give up out of frustration.
carlitos 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 27th May 2020, 07:42 AM   #527
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
You could have fooled me that you care about the burden of proof. Against the evidence of the final 302 and corroborating interview notes, you're countering with a draft 302 that no one actually possesses. You're effectively arguing that the potential of evidence is evidence. That's no different than saying that we know that Strozk had a dry cleaning ticket, and if we only could find it, we could verify whether or not Obama wrote "Nail Flynn, no matter how innocent" on that ticket.
No. You clearly don't understand.

Why does the prosecution have a Brady obligation? Why is there no similar obligation on the part of the defense? It isn't because there's anything specific to prove. There doesn't need to be. The process matters, regardless of the specifics. There are a bunch of legal process obligations for the government which are not there to prove or disprove anything specific, but to minimize the potential for abuse. It's a problem when these processes are not followed.

The FBI should record all their interviews. Not doing so is a deeply flawed process. Unfortunately that ship has already sailed for this case, but it's a god damn ******* big problem. Absent any actual recording, the 302's are supposed to be the official record of what transpired during the interview. These are FAR inferior to any actual recording, for multiple reasons. In the worst cases, agents could simply lie on the 302's. We don't have evidence that occurred here, but we do have proof that agents involved in these cases (including McCabe) have lied, so this is hardly an unreasonable concern. But even in the absence of malice, there are still problems with 302's. Agents could mishear the subject. Agents could misunderstand the subject. Agents could misremember what the subject said.

And all of these problems with 302's are compounded the further away from the interview the 302's are written. That's why it's important for a 302 to be written ONLY by the agents actually there, and as close in time to the interview as possible. There are reasons why drafting a 302 months afterwards is a problem. There are reasons why having someone else involved in drafting a 302 is a problem. These are abuses of the process. And like not getting a warrant for a search, they are abuses of process regardless of the details of the evidence.

But the evidence in this case is tepid, to say the least. Did Flynn lie? The FBI says so, but how do you know? We don't know what he said. According to the 302's, Flynn qualified at least some of his "denials" (ie, in at least one case he said couldn't remember talking about something but wasn't positive he didn't). Did he qualify all his denials? We don't actually know. Was he merely mistaken in his memory rather than trying to be deceptive? The agents initially thought he was being honest. So where's the lie? Again, we don't actually know. Yet he's being prosecuted on the basis of subjective evaluations of the content of a 302. A 302 which was not even written according to the normal procedures of the FBI.

And you don't understand why that's a problem.

As for your unfounded accusation about me not caring about due process, you have absolutely no grounds on which to make this claim. I'll give you an example of another case. Do you remember the Florida Pulse night club shooting? Salman, the wife of Marteen, the shooter, was put on trial for helping him. I suspect she did help him, or at least know of his plans. But a jury gave a verdict of not guilty. Why? Because the FBI ****** up. They interviewed her, and claim she confessed to involvement. But there was no recording of the interview, and she claims she was coerced. The jury gave the correct verdict, and I say that as someone who thinks she's probably guilty.

Process matters. The FBI abuses the process on a regular basis. The Salman jury was right to call it out then. We should call it out now too.
__________________
"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 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 27th May 2020, 08:02 AM   #528
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We don't have evidence that occurred here, but we do have proof that agents involved in these cases (including McCabe) have lied, so this is hardly an unreasonable concern.
Could you clarify this, please?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And like not getting a warrant for a search, they are abuses of process regardless of the details of the evidence.
Are you saying that there was a warrantless search or is that just an example of an abuse of process?


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But the evidence in this case is tepid, to say the least. Did Flynn lie? The FBI says so, but how do you know?
Also, Flynn said so under oath and does not now claim otherwise.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The agents initially thought he was being honest. So where's the lie? Again, we don't actually know.
The agents interviewing him may not have had access to the records of the conversations Flynn had with Kislyak to know that Flynn was lying. We know what the lie was that Flynn was charged with and what he agreed happened in a statement agreed to 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 27th May 2020, 08:08 AM   #529
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,368
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's an incredibly stupid comparison. Nothing about Sullivan's response depends on his memory of unrecorded events. Do you not get why that matters to a 302?
Do you not prepare reports based on meetings? Is editing really that uncommon in your world? Is everyone you work with an excellent writer who nails it on their first draft? This is an incredibly stupid conversation.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 27th May 2020, 08:13 AM   #530
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Could you clarify this, please?
You didn't know?

McCabe leaked to the press, then lied to the FBI multiple times (including under oath) about it.

Quote:
Are you saying that there was a warrantless search or is that just an example of an abuse of process?
It's an example of an abuse of process.

Quote:
The agents interviewing him may not have had access to the records of the conversations Flynn had with Kislyak to know that Flynn was lying.
They did. That's how they knew what to ask him, and to prompt him with words from that conversation.

Quote:
We know what the lie was that Flynn was charged with and what he agreed happened in a statement agreed to under oath.
And we also know that people plead guilty to crimes they aren't actually guilty of.
__________________
"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 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 27th May 2020, 08:14 AM   #531
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Do you not prepare reports based on meetings?
I don't prepare reports that can get people thrown in jail based on my interpretation of what they said.
__________________
"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 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 27th May 2020, 09:49 AM   #532
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Michael Flynn is the guy that testified in open court that he lied to the FBI and was treated fairly, and that he didnít need new counsel, etc. Thatís the guy weíre discussing here.
carlitos 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 27th May 2020, 09:54 AM   #533
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you get why edits to a document are not necessarily nefarious, or are we just assuming they must be?
The whole point of "drafts" is that they contain things that need to be changed.

If the "draft" was already all correct, then it would be the final version.

I really don't get the deal about "we haven't seen the early drafts" of anything, whether it is here or in the JFK autopsy.
__________________
"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 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 27th May 2020, 10:04 AM   #534
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You didn't know?

McCabe leaked to the press, then lied to the FBI multiple times (including under oath) about it.
Clear as mud. Leaked what and lied to the FBI about what?
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They did. That's how they knew what to ask him, and to prompt him with words from that conversation.
Source? Youíve made a lot of assumptions in this thread, many of them wrong.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And we also know that people plead guilty to crimes they aren't actually guilty of.
Did Flynn ever say he didnít lie?
__________________
"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 27th May 2020, 10:12 AM   #535
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
The whole point of "drafts" is that they contain things that need to be changed.

If the "draft" was already all correct, then it would be the final version.

I really don't get the deal about "we haven't seen the early drafts" of anything, whether it is here or in the JFK autopsy.
If you want to be technical, each character added makes a new version of a document. How granular do we need to be?

And it doesnít take a first hand source to correct spelling and formatting so that a document can be readable and cogent.
__________________
"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 27th May 2020, 10:19 AM   #536
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,368
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't prepare reports that can get people thrown in jail based on my interpretation of what they said.
Your lack of expertise is noted.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 27th May 2020, 04:17 PM   #537
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Clear as mud. Leaked what and lied to the FBI about what?

Source? Youíve made a lot of assumptions in this thread, many of them wrong.

Did Flynn ever say he didnít lie?

McCabe leaked to the WSJ at one point, I believe during the toilet server investigation. He berated other FBI employees over the leak knowing he was the one who did it. Later on he denied the leak to investigators, then even later admitted to the leak. A simple google of McCabe, leak, WSJ brings up plenty on it.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 04:21 PM   #538
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Michael Flynn is the guy that testified in open court that he lied to the FBI and was treated fairly, and that he didnít need new counsel, etc. Thatís the guy weíre discussing here.

I think this argument is pretty lazy. As if Flynn is the only person ever to plead guilty to a crime he supposedly didn't commit in the history of jurisprudence. We can do better than that if anyone thinks he's guilty.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 05:57 PM   #539
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I think this argument is pretty lazy. As if Flynn is the only person ever to plead guilty to a crime he supposedly didn't commit in the history of jurisprudence. We can do better than that if anyone thinks he's guilty.
Almost none, or none, of the factors that lead people to plead to crimes they didn't commit are present in the Flynn case though, and he doesn't claim he didn't commit the central acts even now.

Assuming that the factors in other cases are present in this case, or the other way around, is lazy thinking. The specific merits matter.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 06:01 PM   #540
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well put.
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Indeed. Reminds me of the appeal to magic language of sovereign citizens, or the appeal to magic super-silent explosives of 9/11 truthers. At heart, itís just conspiracy theory and flooding the zone with enough BS that some significant percentage of people either believe it or give up out of frustration.
They can always claim there is another secret 'draft' that wasn't turned over. It's the same as the 'missing link' argument or the 'god of the gaps' where they not only fill in any gaps with their preferred assertion, they can invent new gaps themselves.

What they really want is to find the file save with an accidental double negative they can cite as proof this was all Obama's orders or whatever their favorite conclusion is. Lacking that, they'll keep 'flooding the zone with ****' as their tacticians have explicitly said they do.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 06:29 PM   #541
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
McCabe leaked to the WSJ at one point, I believe during the toilet server investigation. He berated other FBI employees over the leak knowing he was the one who did it. Later on he denied the leak to investigators, then even later admitted to the leak. A simple google of McCabe, leak, WSJ brings up plenty on it.
What I found was not related to the Flynn case. Is this relevant?
__________________
"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 27th May 2020, 07:06 PM   #542
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. You clearly don't understand.

Why does the prosecution have a Brady obligation? Why is there no similar obligation on the part of the defense? It isn't because there's anything specific to prove. There doesn't need to be. The process matters, regardless of the specifics. There are a bunch of legal process obligations for the government which are not there to prove or disprove anything specific, but to minimize the potential for abuse. It's a problem when these processes are not followed.

The FBI should record all their interviews. Not doing so is a deeply flawed process. Unfortunately that ship has already sailed for this case, but it's a god damn ******* big problem. Absent any actual recording, the 302's are supposed to be the official record of what transpired during the interview. These are FAR inferior to any actual recording, for multiple reasons. In the worst cases, agents could simply lie on the 302's. We don't have evidence that occurred here, but we do have proof that agents involved in these cases (including McCabe) have lied, so this is hardly an unreasonable concern. But even in the absence of malice, there are still problems with 302's. Agents could mishear the subject. Agents could misunderstand the subject. Agents could misremember what the subject said.

And all of these problems with 302's are compounded the further away from the interview the 302's are written. That's why it's important for a 302 to be written ONLY by the agents actually there, and as close in time to the interview as possible. There are reasons why drafting a 302 months afterwards is a problem. There are reasons why having someone else involved in drafting a 302 is a problem. These are abuses of the process. And like not getting a warrant for a search, they are abuses of process regardless of the details of the evidence.

But the evidence in this case is tepid, to say the least. Did Flynn lie? The FBI says so, but how do you know? We don't know what he said. According to the 302's, Flynn qualified at least some of his "denials" (ie, in at least one case he said couldn't remember talking about something but wasn't positive he didn't). Did he qualify all his denials? We don't actually know. Was he merely mistaken in his memory rather than trying to be deceptive? The agents initially thought he was being honest. So where's the lie? Again, we don't actually know. Yet he's being prosecuted on the basis of subjective evaluations of the content of a 302. A 302 which was not even written according to the normal procedures of the FBI.

And you don't understand why that's a problem.

As for your unfounded accusation about me not caring about due process, you have absolutely no grounds on which to make this claim. I'll give you an example of another case. Do you remember the Florida Pulse night club shooting? Salman, the wife of Marteen, the shooter, was put on trial for helping him. I suspect she did help him, or at least know of his plans. But a jury gave a verdict of not guilty. Why? Because the FBI ****** up. They interviewed her, and claim she confessed to involvement. But there was no recording of the interview, and she claims she was coerced. The jury gave the correct verdict, and I say that as someone who thinks she's probably guilty.

Process matters. The FBI abuses the process on a regular basis. The Salman jury was right to call it out then. We should call it out now too.


How do we know Flynn lied? He admitted his guilt.

Did the 302 we got to see get anything wrong? Flynn didn't say so.


You're positing all kinds of mystery, error and nefarious activity on the part of the FBI. Flynn and his attorneys never hinted at such when he PLEADED GUILTY. He affirmed that the FBI treated him fairly. Because he WAS GUILTY.

A this later reversal crap was done because of the intervention of Barr. At Trump's 'suggestion' (which he has no trouble grappling with, despite his feigned ignorance under Senate questioning.)

To me, Occam's razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Flynn pleaded guilty because he knew he was. Trump said he lied. Pence said he lied. Flynn and his attorneys would never plead so out of the fear that some oterwise innocent, poor shlub would. For a connected person of influence and power, if innocent he would have fought tooth and nail.

All this frantic, enervated flailing about for anything to grasp by way of annulling Flynn's guilt has to reject the fundamental fact of Flynn fully, wholly admitting his guilt. You're essentially saying he and his attorneys are bumbling dolts.
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 27th May 2020, 07:40 PM   #543
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What I found was not related to the Flynn case. Is this relevant?
As I said, it was the toilet server case. In any event, I believe the point being made by the original poster was that McCabe was a confirmed liar.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 07:47 PM   #544
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,245
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
How do we know Flynn lied? He admitted his guilt.

Did the 302 we got to see get anything wrong? Flynn didn't say so.


You're positing all kinds of mystery, error and nefarious activity on the part of the FBI. Flynn and his attorneys never hinted at such when he PLEADED GUILTY. He affirmed that the FBI treated him fairly. Because he WAS GUILTY.

A this later reversal crap was done because of the intervention of Barr. At Trump's 'suggestion' (which he has no trouble grappling with, despite his feigned ignorance under Senate questioning.)

To me, Occam's razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Flynn pleaded guilty because he knew he was. Trump said he lied. Pence said he lied. Flynn and his attorneys would never plead so out of the fear that some oterwise innocent, poor shlub would. For a connected person of influence and power, if innocent he would have fought tooth and nail.

All this frantic, enervated flailing about for anything to grasp by way of annulling Flynn's guilt has to reject the fundamental fact of Flynn fully, wholly admitting his guilt. You're essentially saying he and his attorneys are bumbling dolts.
Ironically, the only thing we know Flynn is guilty of is lying about stuff he didn't have to lie about, to people who probably shouldn't have been asking him in the first place.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 07:49 PM   #545
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Almost none, or none, of the factors that lead people to plead to crimes they didn't commit are present in the Flynn case though, and he doesn't claim he didn't commit the central acts even now.

Assuming that the factors in other cases are present in this case, or the other way around, is lazy thinking. The specific merits matter.
To what factors are you referring? Don't generalize.

I don't believe Flynn has made any statement since the whole ordeal began. I'm not sure why you think he would be on FOX News saying anything at this point given his silence from the beginning. Attorneys typically tell their clients not to make public statements. I don't put much weight in that.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 09:36 PM   #546
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
All this frantic, enervated flailing about for anything to grasp by way of annulling Flynn's guilt has to reject the fundamental fact of Flynn fully, wholly admitting his guilt. You're essentially saying he and his attorneys are bumbling dolts.
His first attorneys had a conflict of interest, and never should have acted as his counsel for this case. And they also had a lot less information available to them at the time he entered his plea than his current attorney has now.

Do you think everyone who pleads guilty to a crime they didn't commit is an idiot? Or do you think it's possible to make that choice rationally?
__________________
"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 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 27th May 2020, 09:44 PM   #547
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
To what factors are you referring? Don't generalize.
You first, as it was your claim his sworn testimony wasn't good evidence because other people have plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. That's a positive claim. How does other people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit apply to Flynn?

Quote:
I don't believe Flynn has made any statement since the whole ordeal began. I'm not sure why you think he would be on FOX News saying anything at this point given his silence from the beginning. Attorneys typically tell their clients not to make public statements. I don't put much weight in that.
There wouldn't have to be public statements on FOX, so I'm not sure why you set the goalposts there.

You're close though. Those Attorneys, do they make statements?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 11:08 PM   #548
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You first, as it was your claim his sworn testimony wasn't good evidence because other people have plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. That's a positive claim. How does other people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit apply to Flynn?



There wouldn't have to be public statements on FOX, so I'm not sure why you set the goalposts there.

You're close though. Those Attorneys, do they make statements?
Following your attorney's advice. Also said by Flynn under penalty of perjury


ďI agreed to plead guilty...because of the intense pressure from the Special Counselís Office, which included a threat to indict my son MichaelÖC&B assured me [on Nov 30, 2017], that if I accepted the plea, my son Michael would be left in peaceĒ
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 11:18 PM   #549
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,163
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Following your attorney's advice. Also said by Flynn under penalty of perjury


ďI agreed to plead guilty...because of the intense pressure from the Special Counselís Office, which included a threat to indict my son MichaelÖC&B assured me [on Nov 30, 2017], that if I accepted the plea, my son Michael would be left in peaceĒ

Micheal Flynn worked for his father's company which violated a number of laws with regard to FARA, etc.
The prosecutors letting Flynn plead out to lying in return for dropping the other charges was incredibly lenient.

Michael Cohen took the same deal in return for his wife not being indicted.
No one is claiming that he got unfairly pressured. But then, he is no longer with Trump, so he doesn't get special dispensation to crime.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 11:30 PM   #550
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,249
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Following your attorney's advice. Also said by Flynn under penalty of perjury


ďI agreed to plead guilty...because of the intense pressure from the Special Counselís Office, which included a threat to indict my son MichaelÖC&B assured me [on Nov 30, 2017], that if I accepted the plea, my son Michael would be left in peaceĒ
Intense pressure . . . could that mean iron clad evidence?
Could that mean letting Flynn off lightly (in light of iron clad evidence) in return for useful cooperation was a bad idea?

Seems more likely than your far-fetched waffle baking.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 11:40 PM   #551
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Did Flynn ever say he didnít lie?
Yes, declaration of Michael Flynn Jan 29th 2020. Not that it will matter to anyone, because by gosh, he pleaded guilty. And no innocent person would ever do that.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 11:42 PM   #552
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Intense pressure . . . could that mean iron clad evidence?
Could that mean letting Flynn off lightly (in light of iron clad evidence) in return for useful cooperation was a bad idea?

Seems more likely than your far-fetched waffle baking.
Love how you sliced and diced the quote for your flap jacks.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 27th May 2020, 11:48 PM   #553
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Micheal Flynn worked for his father's company which violated a number of laws with regard to FARA, etc.
The prosecutors letting Flynn plead out to lying in return for dropping the other charges was incredibly lenient.

Michael Cohen took the same deal in return for his wife not being indicted.
No one is claiming that he got unfairly pressured. But then, he is no longer with Trump, so he doesn't get special dispensation to crime.
Yeah, they tried his business partner for those same charges. Judge threw it out for lack of evidence. So your allegation of FARA law violations is all wet.

Now that that's out the way, let's dispel of your "etc" if you'd like to get specific.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 28th May 2020, 12:41 AM   #554
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,163
It's not my allegation.
If Flynn had been certain that his son was innocent there would have been no coercion from the FBI suggesting he might get charged. Clearly Flynn thought there was a real risk of Michael getting sentenced, or he would have called BS back then.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 01:28 AM   #555
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's not my allegation.
If Flynn had been certain that his son was innocent there would have been no coercion from the FBI suggesting he might get charged. Clearly Flynn thought there was a real risk of Michael getting sentenced, or he would have called BS back then.
You most certainly are bringing up a baseless allegation which was thrown out when it actually went to court. What is the "etc" you were referring to? Let's settle that.


By the time Flynn agreed to plead guilty his attorney fees were in excess of 5 million dollars. This included attorney fees for his FARA work done by Covington and Burling. Which created a conflict of interest with regard to the Special Counsel investigation.I can find no fault with someone for pleading guilty to stop the financial bleeding on his own pocket, and sparing his son from having the same fate. Being found innocent (or not guilty) in a court of law does not mean the gov't get's stuck with your 5 million dollar attorney bill. It was a wise decision at the time.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 28th May 2020, 03:15 AM   #556
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Yes, declaration of Michael Flynn Jan 29th 2020. Not that it will matter to anyone, because by gosh, he pleaded guilty. And no innocent person would ever do that.
I find nothing that supports that claim. Can you be more specific?
__________________
"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 28th May 2020, 03:18 AM   #557
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,197
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post


As I said, it was the toilet server case. In any event, I believe the point being made by the original poster was that McCabe was a confirmed liar.
Zig also said that other agents involved were fought lying. Was any of it in relation to the Flynn case or are we just ad hom’ing here?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 05:45 AM   #558
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,260
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Zig also said that other agents involved were fought lying. Was any of it in relation to the Flynn case or are we just ad homíing here?
The reputation of the FBI was put forth as a reason to believe contents of the 302. The fact that agents have been caught lying in related cases is relevant to that. That isn't an ad hominem.
__________________
"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 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 28th May 2020, 06:13 AM   #559
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I find nothing that supports that claim. Can you be more specific?

It's filed on the docket for his case, the date it was filed is Jan 29th. I'm not sure how much more specific I can get. Try point 9 of the document. "When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24th 2017, I did not lie to them." It's signed by him, not his attorney.

Again, I'm not sure why you're concerned with it, or why anyone would be. After all, he already pleaded guilty.
TahiniBinShawarma 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 28th May 2020, 06:16 AM   #560
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Zig also said that other agents involved were fought lying. Was any of it in relation to the Flynn case or are we just ad homíing here?

Oh I think the ad hom'ing was going on long before that statement by Zig. Have you read this whole thread?
TahiniBinShawarma 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 10:58 PM.
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.