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 8th May 2020, 08:59 AM   #121
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Trump has no knowledge of that other than what the FBI said. So we're still back to what the FBI saying he said being the only piece of evidence.

Look, if you think that piece of evidence suffices, fine. But there's really no getting around the fact that it's still the only piece of evidence.



What Flynn said to Pence isn't relevant. It's not a crime for Flynn to have lied to Pence, and what Flynn said to Pence can be different from what Flynn said to the FBI. So... not evidence.
Again False Trump has the Intelligence from the agency that caught Flynn's involvement and it wasn't just the FBI.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 09:03 AM   #122
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Again False Trump has the Intelligence from the agency that caught Flynn's involvement and it wasn't just the FBI.
Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't a crime, or even improper, so intelligence about the phone call isn't evidence of any crime. The only crime involved was when Flynn allegedly lied to the FBI. And no other intelligence agency has any information about what Flynn said to the FBI other than the FBI. The CIA wasn't evesdropping on that interview. They weren't spying on internal FBI deliberations about that case.

You're really bad at this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 09:17 AM   #123
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't a crime, or even improper, so intelligence about the phone call isn't evidence of any crime. The only crime involved was when Flynn allegedly lied to the FBI. And no other intelligence agency has any information about what Flynn said to the FBI other than the FBI. The CIA wasn't evesdropping on that interview. They weren't spying on internal FBI deliberations about that case.

You're really bad at this.
Actually the Presidentual Statement was an official Statement of the President of the United States of America and can be used in court as an official statement of the United States Government.
You did know that right?
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 09:19 AM   #124
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't a crime, or even improper, so intelligence about the phone call isn't evidence of any crime. The only crime involved was when Flynn allegedly lied to the FBI. And no other intelligence agency has any information about what Flynn said to the FBI other than the FBI. The CIA wasn't evesdropping on that interview. They weren't spying on internal FBI deliberations about that case.

You're really bad at this.
He lied about the contact both to Pense and the FBI the call was recorded By NSA.
Try again.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 09:40 AM   #125
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,003
Either one of these two scenarios must be true:

A) Flynn lied to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

B) Flynn lied under oath when he said "I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty" of lying to the FBI about discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

On my timelines, Trumpers are rooting hard for the latter scenario, b/c it's cooler to lie to federal prosecutors than to lie to federal investigators.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 8th May 2020, 09:43 AM   #126
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Either one of these two scenarios must be true:

A) Flynn lied to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

B) Flynn lied under oath when he said "I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty" of lying to the FBI about discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

On my timelines, Trumpers are rooting hard for the latter scenario, b/c it's cooler to lie to federal prosecutors than to lie to federal investigators.
Absolutely, and he isn't the only liar.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 09:43 AM   #127
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Actually the Presidentual Statement was an official Statement of the President of the United States of America and can be used in court as an official statement of the United States Government.
You did know that right?
It doesn't matter if it's an official statement or not. That's not evidence of what Flynn said, and cannot be used in court as evidence of what Flynn said. Do you understand what evidence is?

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
He lied about the contact both to Pense and the FBI
Lying to Pence isn't relevant, because it's not against any law. And the only evidence that he lied to the FBI is that the FBI says he lied to them.

Quote:
the call was recorded By NSA.
Which is evidence of the contents of the call. But nothing about the call was illegal. And the recording of the call tells us nothing about what Flynn said to the FBI. So we still only have what the FBI says he 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 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 8th May 2020, 09:52 AM   #128
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Either one of these two scenarios must be true:

A) Flynn lied to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

B) Flynn lied under oath when he said "I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty" of lying to the FBI about discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Defendants are not under oath when they enter a plea. That's part of why you can't nail a defendant for perjury if they plead not guilty and then are found guilty. That's also why you also can't railroad a defendant into pleading guilty to a bogus charge, and then charge them with perjury for pleading guilty if the charge is later proven to be bogus. Think how much of a perversion of justice that would be.

Quote:
On my timelines, Trumpers are rooting hard for the latter scenario, b/c it's cooler to lie to federal prosecutors than to lie to federal investigators.
Pleas are made to the court, not to prosecutors.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 09:56 AM   #129
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It doesn't matter if it's an official statement or not. That's not evidence of what Flynn said, and cannot be used in court as evidence of what Flynn said. Do you understand what evidence is?



Lying to Pence isn't relevant, because it's not against any law. And the only evidence that he lied to the FBI is that the FBI says he lied to them.



Which is evidence of the contents of the call. But nothing about the call was illegal. And the recording of the call tells us nothing about what Flynn said to the FBI. So we still only have what the FBI says he said.
Actually it was the same Lie and Pense himself plead Guilty to it, under oath, to get out of that confession he would have to show he was courssed into making the Confession.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 10:05 AM   #130
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Defendants are not under oath when they enter a plea. That's part of why you can't nail a defendant for perjury if they plead not guilty and then are found guilty.
And this is how I know you didn't actually read the statement of the offense itself, since the last bit literally said "I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 8th May 2020, 10:12 AM   #131
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
And this is how I know you didn't actually read the statement of the offense itself, since the last bit literally said "I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Yep it was a sworn confession he retracted, trying to prove he was coerced would have been Impossible without the Barr cover-up.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 10:18 AM   #132
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
And this is how I know you didn't actually read the statement of the offense itself, since the last bit literally said "I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
You said "under oath". That's not under oath. That's not the only context in which perjury can apply, but that statement isn't under oath.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 10:22 AM   #133
Masque
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't a crime, or even improper, so intelligence about the phone call isn't evidence of any crime. The only crime involved was when Flynn allegedly lied to the FBI. And no other intelligence agency has any information about what Flynn said to the FBI other than the FBI. The CIA wasn't evesdropping on that interview. They weren't spying on internal FBI deliberations about that case.

You're really bad at this.
Can someone explain something to me? I don't understand the importance of evidence against Flynn once he pleaded guilty to a crime. According to the ABA, (who I assume know something about this sort of thing)

" that by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to a speedy and public trial, including the right to trial by jury; the right to insist at a trial that the prosecution establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to testify at a trial and the right not to testify at a trial; the right at a trial to be confronted by the witnesses against the defendant, to present witnesses in the defendant's behalf, and to have compulsory process in securing their attendance;"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...pleas_blk/#1.4

There are plenty of grounds on which to ask to be allowed to withdraw a plea, but "they don't have enough evidence" does not seem to be one of them.

For plea bargaining, the ABA seems to view things a little differently:

"(f) The prosecuting attorney should not knowingly make false statements or representations as to law or fact in the course of plea discussions with defense counsel or the defendant.

(g) The prosecuting attorney should not, because of the pendency of plea negotiations, delay any discovery disclosures required to be made to the defense under applicable law or rules."

But Barr is not saying that the plea bargaining was in bad faith, but that the investigation was in some way tainted. It would seem to me that if an investigation into Crime A incidentally uncovers Crime B, the latter should not go unpunished if the investigation into the former is flawed. Once a guilty plea to a crime is entered, that seems to me to pretty much wrap things up.

Why is evidence or lack of it important past the point of the plea? I don't see that the subject of an investigation should be allowed to claim as a defense that he or she was induced or coerced to lie. (Otherwise we would have heard that from Bill Clinton 20 years ago.)

TIA!
Masque 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 8th May 2020, 10:33 AM   #134
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Exactly they simply let Flynn off the hook the same way they let Jerome Corsi off the hook.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 10:41 AM   #135
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,125
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So what? If you believe a piece of evidence, your belief doesn't become a second piece of evidence.
It does if the entirety of your existence is based around determining what is or is not true.

It also does if you've just published an obvious piece of partisan hackery designed to clear someone's name and you fail to clear their name in one specific instance.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 8th May 2020, 10:46 AM   #136
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You said "under oath". That's not under oath. That's not the only context in which perjury can apply, but that statement isn't under oath.
What do you think perjury means?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 8th May 2020, 10:48 AM   #137
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Masque View Post
Can someone explain something to me? I don't understand the importance of evidence against Flynn once he pleaded guilty to a crime.
The specifics of evidence aren't very important to one case if a guilty plea is accepted. But trace the conversation back, and you'll see I was noting a systematic problem with the FBI practice of not recording interviews but only relying on summaries of them. That is a deeply flawed practice, and ripe for abuse. Even mall cops generally know better than that.

Quote:
But Barr is not saying that the plea bargaining was in bad faith, but that the investigation was in some way tainted. It would seem to me that if an investigation into Crime A incidentally uncovers Crime B, the latter should not go unpunished if the investigation into the former is flawed.
It's more complicated than that. Aside from the whole fruit of a poisoned tree thing for criminal cases in general (for example if you do an illegal search and uncover evidence of a crime, you generally can't use that evidence), in this specific case the law actually requires a few elements to make any lie from Flynn criminal. It's not a crime to lie to the FBI under any and all circumstances. The lie has to happen during an official part of a valid investigation, and the lie has to be "material" to that investigation. If the investigation is invalid or the lie isn't material, then a critical element of the crime is missing.

Quote:
Once a guilty plea to a crime is entered, that seems to me to pretty much wrap things up.
Not if there are reasons to contest that guilty plea. In particular for this case, the plea has to be fully informed. And that means that the defense has to have all Brady material (ie, material that the prosecution has that could be favorable to the defense). But they didn't. The DOJ previously withheld Brady material. The defense also alleges that the prosecutor tried to conceal from the judge certain terms of the plea agreement, which is also not OK and can be grounds for invalidating a plea.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 10:50 AM   #138
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It does if the entirety of your existence is based around determining what is or is not true.
Do you think that correctly characterizes Trump?

Do you think that correctly characterizes any politician?

You seem to have lost the train of logic here, because your response is nonsensical.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 11:01 AM   #139
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,924
Ken "popehat" white today

Quote:
Here's the thing: that's the way it has been for a while. And that's the way it is going to continue to be. DoJ is not going to change its position on that or any of the other related issues. Nobody outside of the Trump orbit will see their pleas or convictions reconsidered.

Now, if we saw DoJ -- and Congress -- say "you know, this is long-term unjust, we need to fix this, and also coercive interview techniques," then I'd come closer to buying the "justice is done" narrative.

But we all know that's not going to happen.
Just because DoJ is using the language of criminal reformers for cover does not mean we have to pretend they mean it
BobTheCoward 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 8th May 2020, 01:15 PM   #140
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,421
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
It is standard police procedure to tell lies to suspects. Not saying it's ethical, but this is special pleading.
Where is the special pleading here? Under the current horrific laws as they are, it's been more than well-established that cops are able to lie in almost every case and that suspects cannot.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, that's not evidence. The only evidence he lied is the testimony of the FBI.
We don't actually know that for a fact and it doesn't bolster your position at all to be claiming this as fact. Here's another direct quote from the paper that was provided that you didn't read: "THE COURT: ...There's a great deal of nonpublic information in this case, and I'll just leave it at that. If any of my questions require a party to disclose nonpublic information, or if I begin to discuss something nonpublic, don't be shy in telling me. My clerks over the years have learned to do this (indicating) if I get off of script or if I get into areas where -- I won't get offended if you do it. I may not see you, so stand up and raise your hands or say something, please. I don't want to unintentionally say something that should not be revealed on the public docket.[...]"

WE don't know all the information but THEY all did; or at least, enough information for him to make a decision on how to plead.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
A plea is not evidence. It never has been, it never will be.
Not sure it matters. It's still incumbent on the guilty party to overcome (with evidence, you'll be happy to note) the presumption that they are actually guilty.


Quote:
Those aren't two separate things. The FBI saying he lied is the ONLY piece of evidence. The DOJ statement isn't evidence at all, it's a statement of their position, which is based upon the only piece of evidence there is: what the FBI says he said.
Again, the only piece we are aware of.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman 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 8th May 2020, 01:32 PM   #141
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
You claim this is done. I've seen no evidence that this is true. Please present a case where a person was charged with lying when the only evidence was the FBI accusation.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What other evidence do you think is even possible? Certainly the FBI had no other evidence against Flynn when they charged him, and it's circular reasoning to take his plea as evidence.
So, in other words, you can't provide a single example to prove your claim.
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 8th May 2020, 01:55 PM   #142
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,821
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
A plea is not evidence. It never has been, it never will be.



Those aren't two separate things. The FBI saying he lied is the ONLY piece of evidence. The DOJ statement isn't evidence at all, it's a statement of their position, which is based upon the only piece of evidence there is: what the FBI says he said.
You keep claiming there is no other evidence Flynn lied...except VP Pence says Flynn lied to him.

Quote:
"When he was fired, did you know he had lied to the FBI?" Brennan asked Pence.

"What I can tell you is that I knew that he had lied to me -- and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him," the vice president replied.

There is also the matter of the recorded phone call between Flynn and Kislyak.

Quote:
The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.
Of added interest is this from the same Atlantic article:

Quote:
On the day that the Flynn case was dropped, Trump spoke by telephone to Putin. He told reporters that he and Putin had agreed that the investigation of Russian interference was a“hoax”—and that he and Putin had undertaken to work together more closely from here on.
Trump is still denying Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
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 8th May 2020, 02:38 PM   #143
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You keep claiming there is no other evidence Flynn lied...except VP Pence says Flynn lied to him.
We've been over this multiple times already. Flynn lying to Pence is damaging to Flynn's career, but it isn't criminal in any way. It is not part of the charges against Flynn. It is irrelevant to the criminal case. We could have it directly from God himself that Flynn lied to Pence, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the question of whether Flynn lied to the FBI. Flynn lying to Pence isn't evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI.

Do you seriously not get that yet?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 02:47 PM   #144
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
We don't actually know that for a fact
No other evidence has been presented by anyone, including the FBI and the DOJ.

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

Quote:
"THE COURT: ...There's a great deal of nonpublic information in this case,
Yes. The transcript itself is not public. But the transcript isn't evidence he lied to the FBI, it's only evidence of what he talked about with the Russian ambassador. It's a necessary baseline for the case, but it's not evidence of a lie. There are a bunch of details about the predicate for the investigation that are also not public, and that's necessary to establish a critical element of the crime, but that too isn't evidence that he lied.

Quote:
WE don't know all the information but THEY all did; or at least, enough information for him to make a decision on how to plead.
But that's precisely the point: he didn't have all the information. There's a bunch of Brady evidence that wasn't turned over before he made his plea.

Quote:
Not sure it matters. It's still incumbent on the guilty party to overcome (with evidence, you'll be happy to note) the presumption that they are actually guilty.
That's not how any of this works. If you're pleading guilty, nobody is overcoming any evidence. If you're trying to retract a guilty plea, it isn't the presumption that you're guilty which you need to overcome. You don't have to show you're innocent in order to retract a guilty plea. You can BE guilty, and even provably so, and still retract a guilty plea under certain circumstances.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 02:48 PM   #145
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Which isn't evidence. Just like pleading innocent isn't evidence that you're innocent. People have reasons other than the truth to plea the way that they do. Sometimes a plea aligns with the truth, but often it doesn't. If you take the plea itself as evidence of the truth, you're an idiot.
Wait, it isn't evidence for what?

Legally, as long as it is done correctly, a guilty plea is enough evidence for a conviction in court. It doesn't work as scientific evidence, but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s 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 8th May 2020, 02:54 PM   #146
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Defendants are not under oath when they enter a plea.
Flynn was. It was in the transcript.

eta: Page 7, line 21
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 8th May 2020 at 02:57 PM.
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 8th May 2020, 02:54 PM   #147
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,355
Another assessment:
Quote:
The timeline in the government’s own pleading belies this claim. In early 2017, the FBI was investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian actors. After initially planning to close the file on Flynn, the FBI learned that January about his conversations with the Russian ambassador the previous month. Based on that new information, agents decided to keep the file open and interview him about those and other contacts. That, the government now says, was improper.

Let’s be clear about what the Justice Department is saying here: If you’re investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts, and learn new information about a former campaign official (and now member of the administration) who recently had Russia contacts, there’s no good reason to talk to him. That claim is absurd on its face.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...michael-flynn/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 03:13 PM   #148
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Wait, it isn't evidence for what?

Legally, as long as it is done correctly, a guilty plea is enough evidence for a conviction in court.
No, it isn't evidence for a conviction. Just like an innocent plea isn't evidence against a conviction. That's not how it works. It's a procedural step. Once a guilty plea is accepted, the court doesn't need evidence to convict, but it's still not evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 03:20 PM   #149
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,003
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Just because DoJ is using the language of criminal reformers for cover does not mean we have to pretend they mean it
This is somewhat reminiscent of when Comey was sacked for the totally good faith reasons expressed in the Rosenstein memo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 8th May 2020, 03:21 PM   #150
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it isn't evidence for a conviction. Just like an innocent plea isn't evidence against a conviction. That's not how it works. It's a procedural step. Once a guilty plea is accepted, the court doesn't need evidence to convict, but it's still not evidence.
If a guilty plea isn't evidence towards a conviction, on what basis is the conviction made?

To the best of my knowledge, neither one of us are lawyers, but so far in this thread you've been both wrong about the facts and nonsensical in your reasoning. An innocent plea is not evidence because the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused has the presumption of innocence. A guilty plea is fundamentally a different thing. It removes the presumption of innocence and burden of proof from the prosecution because they can point to the confession of guilt as proof.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s 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 8th May 2020, 03:25 PM   #151
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80,955
USA Today: More than 2,000 ex-DOJ employees call for Attorney General Barr's resignation
Quote:
WASHINGTON – More than 2,000 ex-employees of the Department of Justice have signed a letter calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign, writing that his handling of the Roger Stone case "openly and repeatedly flouted" the principle of equal justice under the rule of law.

The letter, published Sunday, comes after a contentious week for the Justice Department, which already faces allegations of succumbing to political pressure from President Donald Trump.

"Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case," the letter reads.
That was before the Flynn case dismissal.

The Letter
Quote:
We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger 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 8th May 2020, 03:27 PM   #152
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
Source

Quote:
In other respects, guilty pleas have the same consequences as guilty verdicts. The judgments of conviction carry the identical evidentiary value and ramifications for future proceedings—including the same potential for sentence enhancement and for forfeiture of assets. In many jurisdictions, a guilty plea or guilty verdict fore-closes defendants from suing their lawyers for malpractice.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s 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 8th May 2020, 03:39 PM   #153
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,821
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We've been over this multiple times already. Flynn lying to Pence is damaging to Flynn's career, but it isn't criminal in any way. It is not part of the charges against Flynn. It is irrelevant to the criminal case. We could have it directly from God himself that Flynn lied to Pence, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the question of whether Flynn lied to the FBI. Flynn lying to Pence isn't evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI.

Do you seriously not get that yet?
Let's give you that one. Let's move on to the recorded call between Flynn and Kislyak. You don't think that contains evidence of lying by Flynn?

And you still haven't presented a case...or any evidence whatsoever...that a person was, or could be, convicted on a claim by the FBI of lying with no other evidence.
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 8th May 2020, 04:05 PM   #154
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,321
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it wasn't. You're talking about what Flynn told Pence. But that's separate from what Flynn told the FBI. Pence has no knowledge about what Flynn told the FBI, only what Flynn told him. But again, what Flynn told Pence isn't relevant to the criminal case against Flynn.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. You believe he told the same lie to Pence as the FBI but you believe Pence but not the FBI.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person 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 8th May 2020, 04:26 PM   #155
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Let's give you that one. Let's move on to the recorded call between Flynn and Kislyak. You don't think that contains evidence of lying by Flynn?
No. It's evidence of what he said to Kislyak, and the FBI needs to have that established in order to show what's a lie and what's the truth. But the lie was what he said in the interview with the FBI, and the recorded call doesn't tell us anything about what he said to the FBI. The only thing that tells us what he said to the FBI is the FBI's testimony.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 04:28 PM   #156
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,154
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. You believe he told the same lie to Pence as the FBI
Where did you get that from? I took no position on that.

Quote:
but you believe Pence but not the FBI.
Who I believe isn't relevant here. Even if I believe the FBI, that won't change the fact that the FBI's testimony is still the only evidence against him.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 04:31 PM   #157
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. You believe he told the same lie to Pence as the FBI but you believe Pence but not the FBI.
Pence was a Dully Elected Officer of the United States of America isn't there a Crime about Lying to an Official of the United States, in his Official capacity?
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 04:32 PM   #158
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Where did you get that from? I took no position on that.



Who I believe isn't relevant here. Even if I believe the FBI, that won't change the fact that the FBI's testimony is still the only evidence against him.
Not True, they have the phone call and the confession and Fynn cooperated.
Giving them more evidence.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 8th May 2020, 04:36 PM   #159
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,003
Zig - I'm afraid you missed this question from a bit earlier.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
What do you think perjury means?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 8th May 2020, 05:32 PM   #160
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,075
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Even if I believe the FBI, that won't change the fact that the FBI's testimony is still the only evidence against him.
There is the matter of the signed confession. Somehow, you keep ignoring that.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 8th May 2020 at 05:34 PM.
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
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 09:21 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.