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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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

Reply
Old 29th May 2020, 02:32 PM   #681
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u...nn-turkey.html

"WASHINGTON — The candidate he [Flynn] was advising last fall was running on a platform of America First. The client he was working for last fall was paying him more than $500,000 to put Turkey first.



Michael T. Flynn, who went from the campaign trail to the White House as President Trump’s first national security adviser, filed papers this week acknowledging that he worked as a foreign agent last year representing the interests of the Turkish government in a dispute with the United States.

His surprising admission, coming more than four months after the election, raised further questions about the rise and fall of a presidential confidant who was forced to resign after 24 days in office for withholding the full story of his communications with Russia’s ambassador. Even now, out of government and out of favor, Mr. Flynn and his contact with foreign figures presented a new headache for a White House eager to move on.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, registered as a lobbyist last year but did not file papers with the Justice Department registering as a foreign agent, providing a fuller understanding of his role, until Tuesday. While he did not work directly for the Turkish government, the firm that hired him, Inovo, is owned by a Turkish-American businessman with links to leaders in Ankara and asked him to work on an issue important to the government."


Just because the Turkish Government didn't directly pay Flynn does not mean that Turkey wasn't paying him. If I give Fred Bloggs $50 to pay you, its still me who is paying you, not Fred Bloggs!
3-10-17, judge tossed it out Sept 2019 for lack of evidence. Now since the gov't couldn't prove your speculation that the money came from Turkey, I'm betting you can't either. Your speculation of where the money came from means nothing.
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 29th May 2020, 02:42 PM   #682
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I don't see how setting up a meeting with an ambassador for after the election proves there were no meetings before the election. The opposite, if anything. I notice you have switched to talking about "pre election" meetings. Taking a look at that:

Mueller couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion, but couldn't rule it out either. But it's silly to pretend that his kids didn't nibble at the bait of getting dirt on Hillary from government-connected Russians. That might have been the whole point of dangling the bait in the first place: To see if the Trump campaign would bite. I can imagine Russian operatives laughing about what a dumb**** Don Jr. was/is.

Russia knew quite well what to do to **** with U.S. elections, and it didn't require collusion with Trump or his spawn. Some light psy-ops on social media proved to be wildly successful at exploiting divisions within the U.S.

This post is nothing but speculation. Also Mueller couldn't prove a negative, thankfully it doesn't work like that for anyone's sake. The important part is that he gave a proctological exam to everyone he could and couldn't even find a remnant of Okroshka.
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 29th May 2020, 03:12 PM   #683
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Flynn Kislyak call transcript released

https://t.co/u6iAc92hye?amp=1
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 29th May 2020, 04:33 PM   #684
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. On December 12, 2018, the Court ordered the government to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum." The government responded to the Court's Order under seal. Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. As such, and in view of the strong public presumption in favor of public access to judicial records, see, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."), the Court FORTHWITH ORDERS the government to file its proposed redacted version of the January 24, 2017 FD-302 on the public docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/17/2018. (lcegs3)"
Sorry for the late response. Busy couple of days.

Thanks for trying to provide a source.

To be clear, we were talking about the draft 302. Whether it was relevant.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Originally Posted by Beeyon
Do you believe the FBI has to maintain all intermediate work product, or just the ones involving Flynn?
The Judge seemed to think the "drafted" 302 was relevant.

The 302 ordered to be produced in your minute order quote is a copy of the final302. I agree that this 302 is relevant. The question was whether some intermediate work product what your side seems to refer to as the "original 302" is relevant. The judge demanding a fully copy of the final 302 does not show that a draft 302 is relevant. The judge saw original notes from the interview and the final 302. It is incumbant on the side saying "What about the original 302" to demonstrate some reason why that particular 302 is important. That's why the judge shut down the additional requests under Brady made by Flynn.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 04:41 PM   #685
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
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.
I just realized that you're engaged in a Motte-and-Bailey here. You decry auxilliary issues like the "original 302" out in the bailey, and when challenged run back into the motte with the DoJ/FBI not being impeccable. Have fun.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 04:42 PM   #686
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
Sorry for the late response. Busy couple of days.

Thanks for trying to provide a source.

To be clear, we were talking about the draft 302. Whether it was relevant.




The 302 ordered to be produced in your minute order quote is a copy of the final302. I agree that this 302 is relevant. The question was whether some intermediate work product what your side seems to refer to as the "original 302" is relevant. The judge demanding a fully copy of the final 302 does not show that a draft 302 is relevant. The judge saw original notes from the interview and the final 302. It is incumbant on the side saying "What about the original 302" to demonstrate some reason why that particular 302 is important. That's why the judge shut down the additional requests under Brady made by Flynn.
"Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. "

I take that to mean the January 24th one, what am i not seeing?

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 29th May 2020 at 04:44 PM.
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 29th May 2020, 04:44 PM   #687
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why would Flynn NOW be reversing his previously admitted guilt? Because he genuinely believes he is innocent, and now admits to lying under oath in court? Or because he has the weight of the State--in the form of AG Billy, Trump's long-desired 'Roy Cohn'--behind him?

Having such a potent ally as the *prosecution* working with your defence is a powerful incentive to commence lying, knowing how badly the (((prosecutors))) want to get you off.
Flynn's legal about-face occured less than two weeks after Mueller resigned.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 04:52 PM   #688
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,564
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I thought in another thread that you had resigned yourself to a Trump victory in November. Or maybe you were thinking the U.S. needs 4 more years of Trump to let this festering pimple on America's ass come to a head and pop on its own.

Forgive me if that wasn't you. It's kind of how I feel.
This whole crap show has turned me into a waffling schizoid. One moment descending into despair and the next rising to some height of hope. After watching any one of Glenn Kirschner's "Justice is Coming" YT videos I have a surge of optimism.
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 29th May 2020, 05:05 PM   #689
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. "

I take that to mean the January 24th one, what am i not seeing?
It is odd, but I'm mostly sure the 302 he's referring to is what everyone recognizes as the final 302 (minus the fact that it incorrectly says "draft document". I believe a few months later the government refiled it with only that corrected).

If you look it up on Courtlistener.com, the response to the minute order is Document 62. This includes the redacted "final" 302 we're all familiar with. At the bottom of the page it says drafted 24 January 2017, but it's entry date is 15 February 2017. Judge sullivan appears to be treating it as from the 24th of January based on that date, despite the later date of entry.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 05:10 PM   #690
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
It is odd, but I'm mostly sure the 302 he's referring to is what everyone recognizes as the final 302 (minus the fact that it incorrectly says "draft document". I believe a few months later the government refiled it with only that corrected).

If you look it up on Courtlistener.com, the response to the minute order is Document 62. This includes the redacted "final" 302 we're all familiar with. At the bottom of the page it says drafted 24 January 2017, but it's entry date is 15 February 2017. Judge sullivan appears to be treating it as from the 24th of January based on that date, despite the later date of entry.

I'm guessing the Jan 24th version is the one they claim was "lost." In any event, this explains why regulation says it should be done within 5 days. Also why Page having a hand in the editing causes problems. Regardless of whether one thinks it makes a difference factually, it would be a huge problem in front of a jury.
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 29th May 2020, 05:11 PM   #691
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Quote:
Washington — Attorney General William Barr has tasked a top federal prosecutor in Texas with reviewing episodes of "unmasking" by Obama administration officials before and after the 2016 presidential election, a Justice Department official said Wednesday night.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorne...dministration/

So Barr has the time and institutional capital for yet another investigation, but still no movement on:

- Instituting a policy that the FBI will record interviews.
- Instituing a policy that the DOJ will provide brady materials prior to plea deals.
- Instituing a policy that the FBI and DOJ will maintain draft 302s.

At some point anyone who is legtimately concerned with the process infirmities affecting the Flynn case needs to wake up and realize that this "Justice" isn't going to be applied to everyone. The people you're defending have no interest in defending you.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 05:16 PM   #692
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I'm guessing the Jan 24th version is the one they claim was "lost." In any event, this explains why regulation says it should be done within 5 days. Also why Page having a hand in the editing causes problems. Regardless of whether one thinks it makes a difference factually, it would be a huge problem in front of a jury.
This sort of speculation is so selective that it should be embarassing. The charge was part of a plea deal, and we are not privy to much of the material that Mueller was working with. To imagine that the Office of Special Counsel would walk into the court with nothing other than what we know is completely unfounded. It is a bit like saying that no prosecutor could ever get a prosecution for Otzi the iceman's death based on what we know in 2020. You're persuading no-one but the choir.

Last edited by Beeyon; 29th May 2020 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Otzi clarification
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 05:17 PM   #693
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorne...dministration/

So Barr has the time and institutional capital for yet another investigation, but still no movement on:

- Instituting a policy that the FBI will record interviews.
- Instituing a policy that the DOJ will provide brady materials prior to plea deals.
- Instituing a policy that the FBI and DOJ will maintain draft 302s.

At some point anyone who is legtimately concerned with the process infirmities affecting the Flynn case needs to wake up and realize that this "Justice" isn't going to be applied to everyone. The people you're defending have no interest in defending you.
You will get no complaint from me on this. All reasonable proposals. Doesn't make what happened here peachy.
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 29th May 2020, 05:20 PM   #694
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
This sort of speculation is so selective that it should be embarassing. The charge was part of a plea deal, and we are not privy to much of the material that Mueller was working with. To imagine that the Office of Special Counsel would walk into the court with nothing other than what we know is completely unfounded. It is a bit like saying that no prosecutor could ever get a prosecution for Otzi's death based on what we know in 2020. You're persuading no-one but the choir.
Well we have the call transcript now. And sanctions weren't discussed, yet Mueller cited the sanctions in the indictment. Also shows nothing out of the ordinary as to the discussions. Logan Act hype was a joke.
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 29th May 2020, 05:23 PM   #695
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Beeyon View Post
This sort of speculation is so selective that it should be embarassing. The charge was part of a plea deal, and we are not privy to much of the material that Mueller was working with. To imagine that the Office of Special Counsel would walk into the court with nothing other than what we know is completely unfounded. It is a bit like saying that no prosecutor could ever get a prosecution for Otzi the iceman's death based on what we know in 2020. You're persuading no-one but the choir.
Who said we knew everything? Not even Flynn had the call transcript when he pleaded guilty. The idea that the 302 fiasco wouldn't be attacked in front of a jury is ignoring reality.
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 29th May 2020, 05:32 PM   #696
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,253
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Well we have the call transcript now. And sanctions weren't discussed, yet Mueller cited the sanctions in the indictment. Also shows nothing out of the ordinary as to the discussions. Logan Act hype was a joke.
The call transcripts released today show that Flynn did exactly that:
Quote:
Flynn urged Russian ambassador to take 'reciprocal' actions, transcripts show
Flynn’s conversations with the ambassador were a key concern to FBI investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn told Russia’s ambassador to Washington in late 2016 to take “reciprocal” actions in response to Obama administration sanctions for election interference, rather than escalating the situation into a “tit for tat.”
“You might appreciate the sentiments that are raging in Moscow,” the ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, replied to Flynn’s request on the Dec, 29, 2016 call.
Quote:
When Flynn and Kislyak followed up on Dec. 31, 2016, Kislyak emphasized that Russian President Vladimir Putin opted not to escalate the sanctions battle because of his talk with Flynn — despite “raging” feelings in Moscow. And Kisylak argued that the Obama administration sanctions were aimed at damaging the incoming Trump administration just as much as they were the Kremlin.
Quote:
The exchanges are at the heart of the controversy over the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump campaign aides’ contacts with Russian officials throughout. They were released Friday as part of a batch of declassified transcripts to Congress and obtained by POLITICO, detailing conversations between Flynn, the retired lieutenant general, and Kisylak in the weeks before President Donald Trump took office.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...assador-289905
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 05:42 PM   #697
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The call transcripts released today show that Flynn did exactly that:






https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...assador-289905

What Politico does is conflate expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions. In fact, the specific executive order cited by Mueller in his charging documents against Flynn pertained only to Treasury-enforced financial sanctions against nine Russian intelligence individuals and institutions, not to the separate expulsions of Russian diplomats. In his remarks announcing the various maneuvers by his administration against Russia, President Obama even noted that sanctions and expulsions were entirely separate issues handled by different agencies and requiring different legal authorities.

This goes without mentioning that Flynn

"In his interview, Mr.Flynn offered either equivocal (“I don’t know”)or indirect responses,or claimed to not remember the matter in question. See
United States v. Ring, 811F. Supp. 2d 359, 384 (D.D.C.2011) (holding that “faulty memory” is not enough to establish “willful” lie absent proof the defendant indeed remembered the matter in question). Combining the vague substance of the answers, the FBI’s own preliminary estimation
of Mr.Flynn’s truthfulness, the inconsistent FBI records as to the actual questions and statements made, and Director Comey’s own sentiment that the case was a “close one,” Ex.5 at 9, the evidentiary problems that have emerged create reasonable doubt as to whether Mr.Flynn
knowingly and willingly lied to investigators during the interview."

But he didn't talk about sanctions as referenced in the charging document. The conversation was about diplomatic expulsions anyway.
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 29th May 2020, 06:26 PM   #698
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,253
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
What Politico does is conflate expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions. In fact, the specific executive order cited by Mueller in his charging documents against Flynn pertained only to Treasury-enforced financial sanctions against nine Russian intelligence individuals and institutions, not to the separate expulsions of Russian diplomats. In his remarks announcing the various maneuvers by his administration against Russia, President Obama even noted that sanctions and expulsions were entirely separate issues handled by different agencies and requiring different legal authorities.

This goes without mentioning that Flynn

"In his interview, Mr.Flynn offered either equivocal (“I don’t know”)or indirect responses,or claimed to not remember the matter in question. See
United States v. Ring, 811F. Supp. 2d 359, 384 (D.D.C.2011) (holding that “faulty memory” is not enough to establish “willful” lie absent proof the defendant indeed remembered the matter in question). Combining the vague substance of the answers, the FBI’s own preliminary estimation
of Mr.Flynn’s truthfulness, the inconsistent FBI records as to the actual questions and statements made, and Director Comey’s own sentiment that the case was a “close one,” Ex.5 at 9, the evidentiary problems that have emerged create reasonable doubt as to whether Mr.Flynn
knowingly and willingly lied to investigators during the interview."

But he didn't talk about sanctions as referenced in the charging document. The conversation was about diplomatic expulsions anyway.
You'd better inform all the news media because they must also be conflating the expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions.
Quote:
VP Pence stated earlier that "(Flynn and Kislyak) did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."

"What I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions."


Pence later stated

Brennan asked the vice president on Thursday whether he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI by the time he was fired.
"What I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me," Pence replied, "and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i...-he-was-fired/

Flynn denied he had discussed the sanctions and the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 06:44 PM   #699
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I'm guessing the Jan 24th version is the one they claim was "lost." In any event, this explains why regulation says it should be done within 5 days. Also why Page having a hand in the editing causes problems. Regardless of whether one thinks it makes a difference factually, it would be a huge problem in front of a jury.

The evidence sucked so bad that a retired General, highly paid international consultant and national security advisor pleaded guilty.
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 29th May 2020, 06:49 PM   #700
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You'd better inform all the news media because they must also be conflating the expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i...-he-was-fired/

Flynn denied he had discussed the sanctions and the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
No, the media already knows this, but there is plenty of ass covering going on by them because they hyped all the Russia hysteria for 3 years and crapped out when Mueller failed to find any conspiracy. Media know that the diplomatic expulsions were different than Ex Order 13757

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

http://archive.is/n1kjG


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

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

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

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

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

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/02/...mpression=true


And yet the call transcript shows is that sanctions weren't discussed by Flynn, the diplomatic expulsions were. Yet the Mueller indictment references the sanctions.
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 29th May 2020, 06:52 PM   #701
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
The evidence sucked so bad that a retired General, highly paid international consultant and national security advisor pleaded guilty.

Obviously bad advice from his attorneys, which explains why he fired them.
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 29th May 2020, 07:08 PM   #702
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
“Only the best people”
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 29th May 2020, 07:32 PM   #703
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
“Only the best people”
Cute, but irrelevant.
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 29th May 2020, 07:37 PM   #704
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The only other charge would be the one U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga threw out for lack of evidence against Flynn's business partner for FARA violation, and a Logan Act violation was never considered a reality.
Yes, that case. The case Flynn was supposed to provide evidence for, but he ended up refusing to cooperate.

Did...did you think that made it not a good faith prosecution? Or do you think we'll forget the argument you're trying not to support.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
3-10-17, judge tossed it out Sept 2019 for lack of evidence. Now since the gov't couldn't prove your speculation that the money came from Turkey, I'm betting you can't either. Your speculation of where the money came from means nothing.
'Yeah, Flynn was paid to work for Turkey but he wasn't technically paid by Turkey, and cutouts make this all ok!'

Yeah, no. This still predicates a counter-intel investigation. Again, the DOJ claims not that Flynn was innocent, but that the calls shouldn't be admissible because of the 'fruit of the poison tree'.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You'd better inform all the news media because they must also be conflating the expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i...-he-was-fired/

Flynn denied he had discussed the sanctions and the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
No, the media already knows this, but there is plenty of ass covering going on by them because they hyped all the Russia hysteria for 3 years and crapped out when Mueller failed to find any conspiracy. Media know that the diplomatic expulsions were different than Ex Order 13757...
Yeah, no, the media is quoting Pence and nothing shows that Flynn and Russia separated those issues. Because they didn't. Like we're not here. That other people in other contexts can and have is meaningless.
__________________
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 29th May 2020, 07:58 PM   #705
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You'd better inform all the news media because they must also be conflating the expulsion of Russian diplomats with sanctions.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i...-he-was-fired/

Flynn denied he had discussed the sanctions and the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
If Flynn supposedly lied by not telling Strozk/Pientka about the expulsion discussion in his FBI interview, what are the words “box[ed] us in” doing in the word for word transcript AND in Joe Pientka’s notes?

And why is it NOT in the 302?
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg EZNxreKX0AAGBme.jpeg (5.9 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpeg EZNxreJWoAIS_QX.jpeg (18.5 KB, 7 views)
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 29th May 2020, 09:24 PM   #706
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,564
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Well we have the call transcript now. And sanctions weren't discussed, yet Mueller cited the sanctions in the indictment. Also shows nothing out of the ordinary as to the discussions. Logan Act hype was a joke.
How many calls did Flynn have with Kislyak--or any other Russki?

How many of these calls do we have transcripts for?
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 29th May 2020, 09:39 PM   #707
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,564
Tahini,
I'm impressed to the point of near astonishment at your dogged tenacity, and near inexhaustible supply of new wrinkles to winkle out of this Flynn thing. Were I to exert such effort, I think it would become a near full-time job. How do you find the time? Whence your deep concern over the fate of Flynn, who I think would at most have faced a paltry couple or few months in jail? He's practically the definition of the privileged class.There are folk facing far worse injustices that you could campaign for. Such as the falsely accused/convicted serving life sentences, or even the death penalty.

Why this fervor over Flynn?

Last edited by Lurch; 29th May 2020 at 09:40 PM.
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 29th May 2020, 10:12 PM   #708
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,253
I trust Mueller. His reputation from both sides of the aisle over years of service was exceptional. He was non-partisan in his work even though he is a Republican. It wasn't until this pig of a president and his minion Barr became involved that aspersions were cast on his integrity and work. I don't trust ANYTHING either of those two say. Trump is a pathological liar and Barr is his sycophant. Barr proved that when he misrepresented what the Mueller report said

Flynn lied. He pleaded guilty to lying. All the rest of this is just more crap coming from Trump, his team and his supporters in an effort to discredit Mueller and his report.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 10:16 PM   #709
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I trust Mueller. His reputation from both sides of the aisle over years of service was exceptional. He was non-partisan in his work even though he is a Republican. It wasn't until this pig of a president and his minion Barr became involved that aspersions were cast on his integrity and work. I don't trust ANYTHING either of those two say. Trump is a pathological liar and Barr is his sycophant. Barr proved that when he misrepresented what the Mueller report said

Flynn lied. He pleaded guilty to lying. All the rest of this is just more crap coming from Trump, his team and his supporters in an effort to discredit Mueller and his report.
Your opinions don't matter, the facts of what happened do. Your lack of a response to the facts presented are duly noted.
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 29th May 2020, 10:17 PM   #710
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,933
Nice transcript. It certainly smells like collusion to me.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 10:21 PM   #711
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post

Flynn lied.
Now if someone here could just cite the indictment, the call transcripy, and the 302(agent notes included) and point out the lie (crime alleged in the indictment) by comparison.


They won't because the facts as they are don't allow 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 29th May 2020, 10:24 PM   #712
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Nice transcript. It certainly smells like collusion to me.

Well that's funny, because that was never alleged about the call by anyone at the DOJ or FBI.
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 29th May 2020, 10:25 PM   #713
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Tahini,
I'm impressed to the point of near astonishment at your dogged tenacity, and near inexhaustible supply of new wrinkles to winkle out of this Flynn thing. Were I to exert such effort, I think it would become a near full-time job. How do you find the time? Whence your deep concern over the fate of Flynn, who I think would at most have faced a paltry couple or few months in jail? He's practically the definition of the privileged class.There are folk facing far worse injustices that you could campaign for. Such as the falsely accused/convicted serving life sentences, or even the death penalty.

Why this fervor over Flynn?
Irrelevant, you avoidance of the facts are duly noted.
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 29th May 2020, 10:29 PM   #714
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,933
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Well that's funny, because that was never alleged about the call by anyone at the DOJ or FBI.
Oops, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who's interested in playing your semantical shell-game.

The transcript looks an awful lot like collusion.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 10:33 PM   #715
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,205
nvm

We will learn more about Flynn, Turkey and Russia when Barr takes of his knee from the neck of investigators and prosecutors.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 29th May 2020 at 10:34 PM.
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 29th May 2020, 10:44 PM   #716
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,253
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Your opinions don't matter, the facts of what happened do. Your lack of a response to the facts presented are duly noted.
As far as 'the facts', I don't pretend to be an expert on all the ins and outs of this. But I do know who has a reputation for being an honest, non-partisan gov't servant with integrity who has worked for presidents of both parties with distinction and not a whiff of scandal. And I know who has told documented lie after lie after lie, who is a narcissistic, paranoid, self-serving ******* who cares only about himself. As to what you think, in the immortal words of Rhett Butler: frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 10:48 PM   #717
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As far as 'the facts', I don't pretend to be an expert on all the ins and outs of this. But I do know who has a reputation for being an honest, non-partisan gov't servant with integrity who has worked for presidents of both parties with distinction and not a whiff of scandal. And I know who has told documented lie after lie after lie, who is a narcissistic, paranoid, self-serving ******* who cares only about himself. As to what you think, in the immortal words of Rhett Butler: frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
That you don't know the facts is obvious. I'm here for that discussion.
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 29th May 2020, 10:51 PM   #718
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
nvm

We will learn more about Flynn, Turkey and Russia when Barr takes of his knee from the neck of investigators and prosecutors.
We know more and more every day with declassification, and it's not going so well for those who peddled Russian collusion for the past 4 years. It's only going to get worse. By all means dig in your heels some more.
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 29th May 2020, 10:52 PM   #719
TahiniBinShawarma
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Oops, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who's interested in playing your semantical shell-game.

The transcript looks an awful lot like collusion.
Meaningless drivel.
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 29th May 2020, 10:54 PM   #720
Beeyon
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You will get no complaint from me on this. All reasonable proposals. Doesn't make what happened here peachy.
No, but it does demonstrate that Barr is not interested in everyone getting the justice that he has interceded to provide for Flynn.

Barr's disinterest in justice is much more important than any punishment that Flynn does or does not deserve.
Beeyon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 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.