Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-09-2020, 05:16 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This one keeps coming up, but it is obvious bullshit if you look at the timeline of events.

On January 15, Mike Pence (VP-elect at the time) appeared on Face the Nation and said that Flynn did not discuss Russian sanctions with Kislyak. The Crossfire Hurricane team knew this wasn't true. If Flynn was lying to the incoming administration, these lies in and of themselves could compromise him.

So while the FBI didn't have derogatory info on Flynn on Jan 4, they sure did have derogatory info on Flynn when they interviewed him on Jan 24. Bill Barr and many right wing journos are pretending that this is not the case, but it does not hold up to even a cursory examination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I already linked to it once, but here's Judge Sullivan's 92 page opinion from 12/16/2019.

The judge already ruled that it was a valid counter-intelligence investigation.

The judge already ruled that the FBI did not illegally withhold information.

The judge already ruled that Flynn's lies were material.

A lot of people (including Bill Barr) are pretending that recently revealed information wipes this away, but it does not.

Don't fall for it.
1) Either Pence lied to the public or Flynn lied to Pence. And the FBI had wiretapped Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak. They knew exactly what was said. There was no need for further investigation. The notes from the FBI agents Strzok et al show that they used a lapse in the closure of the file to try to get Flynn into a perjury trap. The same agent who said that he would do anything to stop Trump's election the summer prior. That is not a legitimate use of law enforcement resources, nor was it disclosed to Flynn prior to his guilty plea.

2) The judge did rule that as a matter of law it was material and he would not keep it from jury consideration. However, he did so prior to the disclosure of the FBI notes. Further, the judge doesn't have the final word on the matter as it is a jury determination at the end of the day if it goes to trial.

And to asahi, please read my posts above. Many, many, many, and many people plead guilty because the system favors the government/state. A guilty plea does not mean you are guilty. That is a fiction to allow the plea bargain machine to keep running.

They threatened to prosecute his son if he didn't take the plea. I would protect my kids the same way. I'll plead to what you want to protect my kids, especially once you've made me sell my house and bleed through all my money to pay for lawyers.

Again, I'm not with Hannity et al saying that this is the worst miscarriage of justice ever. It is sadly very common and if he was not an ally of Trump, he would not have gotten this consideration. I freely admit that. But this is how prosecutors should behave.
  #52  
Old 05-09-2020, 05:19 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Factual question: did the initial investigation of Flynn involve a counterintelligence issue?
It was part of Crossfire Hurricane which was a counterintelligence investigation.
  #53  
Old 05-09-2020, 05:29 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
You start off well and then you show you have fallen for a lot of bullshit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Either Pence lied to the public or Flynn lied to Pence.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And the FBI had wiretapped Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
They knew exactly what was said.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
There was no need for further investigation.
False

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The notes from the FBI agents Strzok et al show that they used a lapse in the closure of the file to try to get Flynn into a perjury trap.
False

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The same agent who said that he would do anything to stop Trump's election the summer prior.
False

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That is not a legitimate use of law enforcement resources, nor was it disclosed to Flynn prior to his guilty plea.
False

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 05-09-2020 at 05:29 PM.
  #54  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:19 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The notes from the FBI agents Strzok et al show that they used a lapse in the closure of the file to try to get Flynn into a perjury trap.
Gen. Flynn could easily avoid a perjury trap; he merely needed to not lie to the FBI. "I have nothing to say" is a proper response when we wish to avoid perjury, right?

BTW agent Strzok tweeted unkindly about many political players IIRC* and a comprehensive review in February 2018 of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump". (cite) Did commies at the WSJ give Strzok a pass? Or is the Strzok-hates-Trump meme just the usual bullshit?

* PS - Okay, a cite:
Quote:
Some of the texts disparaged then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Attorney General in the Obama administration Eric Holder, former Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders... Strzok and Page also advocated creating a Special Counsel to investigate the Hillary Clinton email controversy,
  #55  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:33 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It was part of Crossfire Hurricane which was a counterintelligence investigation.
And so how does Flynn’s lawyers argue that counterintelligence investigations are not matters of import? I can kind of understand the logic of saying that an investigation for a defunct law, the Logan Act, might not be material if it is so unlikely that anyone would ever be charged with that crime. But if someone is questioned as part of a counterintelligence investigation, seems like concluding that people are free to lie about such matters is something that will backfire very quickly.
  #56  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:56 AM
eenerms is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Finally...Wisc...!
Posts: 3,115
Good!
  #57  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:41 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And so how does Flynn’s lawyers argue that counterintelligence investigations are not matters of import?
Poorly.

The judge in the case rejected these arguments. For some reason Bill Barr, right wing media, and posters in this thread are now accepting these arguments in spite of the judge's ruling.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 05-10-2020 at 08:44 AM.
  #58  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:58 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The FBI claimed it was a crime while withholding information that would have allowed him and his lawyers to understand that this was incorrect.
How does that even work?
  #59  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:38 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
How does that even work?
On Jan 4 2017 the FBI had declared that their investigation of Flynn was complete, and had found no derogatory information (IOW, they'd concluded he had no connection to any Russian collusion or other illegal activity - he was clean). This admits a strong legal argument that at the Jan 24 interview, Flynn's answers were not "material" (which they must be for him to be guilty as charged).

But this fact was disclosed to Flynn's lawyers only very recently - long, long after it was required to have been. This is very clearly "prosecutorial malfeasance".


It's actually much worse than this overview implies. A smiling Comey is on record explaining how the FBI cleverly bypassed the normal procedures for setting up an interview with the National Security Advisor. The FBI notes from that meeting were submitted very late and heavily edited. Etc.
  #60  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:13 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Anyone else think we are heading toward show trials of Obama administration officials in the next few months?
  #61  
Old 05-10-2020, 01:37 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
On Jan 4 2017 the FBI had declared that their investigation of Flynn was complete, and had found no derogatory information (IOW, they'd concluded he had no connection to any Russian collusion or other illegal activity - he was clean). This admits a strong legal argument that at the Jan 24 interview, Flynn's answers were not "material" (which they must be for him to be guilty as charged).
This is bullshit and the judge already ruled against this argument.

Things happened between Jan 4 and Jan 24. This has been explained. Any argument that ignores this is invalid.
  #62  
Old 05-10-2020, 02:49 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Anyone else think we are heading toward show trials of Obama administration officials in the next few months?
I'm surprised show trials haven't started. I won't be surprised by probes of Deep State conspiracies.* Yes, expect Barr's DoJ to target Obama-Clinton-Biden-Pelosi associates and families with nasty charges in carefully-selected courts. It's so Stalinist.** Expect more darkness at noon.

* Total bullshit, of course. If an effective Deep State actually existed, Ms Clinton would infest occupy the Oval Office. Or she would have until being impeached in February 2017.

** I'll avoid Godwin's Law but does any online law cover invocations of Stalin?
  #63  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Another account of Bill Barr's dishonesty: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/o...?smid=tw-share

Barr is one of the most knowingly corrupt government officials in living memory.
  #64  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:49 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Gen. Flynn could easily avoid a perjury trap; he merely needed to not lie to the FBI. "I have nothing to say" is a proper response when we wish to avoid perjury, right?
Because people lie. That's what we do. Especially when government agents come to you and start asking questions about shit you did. Deny, deny, deny is your first instinct.

It is so strong that in my state the law against lying to the police specifically excludes a person who is under investigation.

But the situation here was absurd. They had the tapes. They knew he didn't violate the Logan Act. They knew he didn't collude with Russia or anyone else. The investigation was to be closed. But the notes from the agents show that they didn't want it to be closed.

They wanted an interview with Flynn solely for the purpose of hoping he would lie about something so they could charge him with that. Read that last sentence again. Do you think that is a legitimate function of our law enforcement agencies? I don't. It's abusive and politically motivated. I'm against that whether it is Flynn or Hillary or the mayor of a small town.

Investigate crimes, not people.
  #65  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:51 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Also, nobody on either side of this seems at all concerned that the FBI just wiretaps phone conversations between high ranking officials for no cause. Welcome to the Land of the Free, I guess.
  #66  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Because people lie. That's what we do. Especially when government agents come to you and start asking questions about shit you did. Deny, deny, deny is your first instinct.

It is so strong that in my state the law against lying to the police specifically excludes a person who is under investigation.

But the situation here was absurd. They had the tapes. They knew he didn't violate the Logan Act. They knew he didn't collude with Russia or anyone else. The investigation was to be closed. But the notes from the agents show that they didn't want it to be closed.

They wanted an interview with Flynn solely for the purpose of hoping he would lie about something so they could charge him with that. Read that last sentence again. Do you think that is a legitimate function of our law enforcement agencies? I don't. It's abusive and politically motivated. I'm against that whether it is Flynn or Hillary or the mayor of a small town.

Investigate crimes, not people.
This is the Barr/Trump line, but you've ignored numerous facts, like those described in detail in linked articles from law professionals who point out the many dishonest representations by Barr.
  #67  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Also, nobody on either side of this seems at all concerned that the FBI just wiretaps phone conversations between high ranking officials for no cause. Welcome to the Land of the Free, I guess.
Having met Mike Flynn years ago, and talked to him for maybe 45 minutes, I can state clearly that the dude was a nut, loose cannon, a few chips short of a bag, and deserved some kind of investigation. And this was well before he hooked up with Trump.
  #68  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:19 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But the situation here was absurd. They had the tapes. They knew he didn't violate the Logan Act. They knew he didn't collude with Russia or anyone else. The investigation was to be closed. But the notes from the agents show that they didn't want it to be closed.
They had the tapes, and they had evidence that Flynn was lying about what he said on the tapes. This is important because Flynn could have been compromised as a result of these lies. Lies told after the January 4 notes about closing the case.

Contact with an agent of a hostile foreign power is a perfectly good predicate to open or continue a counterintelligence investigation, especially when national security is at stake.

Evidence that Flynn was compromised was a perfectly good predicate for questioning Flynn.
  #69  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:00 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is bullshit and the judge already ruled against this argument.
The fact that the prosecution did not disclose important information (e.g. that the FBI has decided Flynn was clean) came out only recently - well after the judge's ruling.
  #70  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:15 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The fact that the prosecution did not disclose important information (e.g. that the FBI has decided Flynn was clean) came out only recently - well after the judge's ruling.
False.

For multiple reasons.
  #71  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:17 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
Quote:
Quoth UltraVires:

Because people lie. That's what we do. Especially when government agents come to you and start asking questions about shit you did. Deny, deny, deny is your first instinct.
Well, that's what some of us do, anyway. And that's a bad thing. Which is why we have laws against lying in certain important circumstances.

I'd rather have the power in this nation wielded by the people who don't lie.
  #72  
Old 05-11-2020, 10:27 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'd rather have the power in this nation wielded by the people who don't lie.
So do I, but I include the FBI in that. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #73  
Old 05-11-2020, 10:37 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
And if you have any evidence that the FBI lied, then I'd welcome hearing about it.

Note that neither changing their position when new evidence comes to light, nor refraining from telling the subject of an investigation everything they know, constitutes lying.
  #74  
Old 05-11-2020, 10:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Flynn lied, admitted lying, and his behavior was characterized as lying by both the VP and the President... and now they think it would be fine to welcome him back to high government service.

What's it like to be forced, day after day, to defend and rationalize this kind of incredibly dishonorable and indecent behavior? I can't imagine. Must really, really suck -- even just for those who variously use snark and one-liners to try and dismiss it. That can't be good for your soul, day after day after day.
  #75  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:32 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Flynn lied, admitted lying, and his behavior was characterized as lying by both the VP and the President... and now they think it would be fine to welcome him back to high government service.

What's it like to be forced, day after day, to defend and rationalize this kind of incredibly dishonorable and indecent behavior? I can't imagine. Must really, really suck -- even just for those who variously use snark and one-liners to try and dismiss it. That can't be good for your soul, day after day after day.
I keep coming back to this same thought. Just rip the bandaid off and admit you were wrong.

I mean, it must be exhausting to keep pretending. Being conned is not shameful, but insisting on being conned is.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 05-11-2020 at 11:33 AM.
  #76  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:14 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Also, nobody on either side of this seems at all concerned that the FBI just wiretaps phone conversations between high ranking officials for no cause. Welcome to the Land of the Free, I guess.
They were wiretapping high level Russian officials. If an ex-military private citizen with close government contacts (which describes Flynn at the time of the call) happens to call a high level Russian official that’s being wiretapped, are you suggesting they should turn off the tape?

IIRC, the judge didn’t think the prosecution went far enough and questioned why Flynn wasn’t charged with treason.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 05-11-2020 at 12:15 PM.
  #77  
Old 05-11-2020, 02:52 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I keep coming back to this same thought. Just rip the bandaid off and admit you were wrong.
Team Tramp CANNOT admit mistakes. The only options are lie, deny, deflect, and blame. Admission of error is fatal. Only luzers apologize; winners gloat because perfect, doing nothing wrong, we're the greatest, yada yada.

Quote:
I mean, it must be exhausting to keep pretending. Being conned is not shameful, but insisting on being conned is.
They've mostly pretended enough to avoid jail. But the hard part of pretending is memory, continuity, remembering which lies were told last. Team Tramp just issues new lies irrespective of prior bullshit. Old bullshit dries up and blows away fast; the faithful herd and the exhausted, frantic press only notice the latest, freshest bullshit. Lead on, oh diarrhetic one!
  #78  
Old 05-11-2020, 03:56 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
But, I don't even mean the Trump administration. I mean the supporters. The Republicans who somehow simultaneously venerate Reagan and also support Trump, despite the fact that the former would never share a party with the latter.
  #79  
Old 05-11-2020, 05:39 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,914
Funny. Nearly 2,000 US attorneys disagree (The Hill) with Barr's interpretation of the law in the instant case and have signed a petition calling on Barr to resign for his actions.

Quote:
Nearly 2,000 former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations condemned the DOJ and Attorney General William Barr on Monday for moving to drop charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The former officials said Barr “once again assaulted the rule of law” and accused the attorney general of using the department “as a tool to further President Trump’s personal and political interests.”
I know which side I find more credible between 2,000 DOJ officials/Judge Emmet Sullivan, and "Judge" Jeanine Pirro.

Ann Hedonia, your recollection is correct.

The aforementioned <sarcasm>distinguished</sarcasm> Fox "News" propagandist Jeanine Pirro opines (Youtube at 7:55) on how Judge Emmet Sullivan would rule in Flynn's favor at sentencing, because he is an outstanding judge who can see through the Deep State Conspiracy™ and will throw out the conviction because it is so obviously unlawful. She got the first part right, at least. Judge Emmet Sullivan certainly saw through all the BS. He wondered aloud on the record if the prosecutors had explored treason charges for Flynn.

Interesting how Pirro's opinion tracks almost in lockstep with those in this thread expressing their outrage over Flynn's treatment. It's as if they can't be bothered to read Judge Sullivan's actual ruling, or indeed any of the underlying documents such as Mueller's full report.
  #80  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:29 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So do I, but I include the FBI in that. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
This seems like a strange position to take. Do you similarly feel that state and local law enforcement should not be allowed to lie as well?
  #81  
Old 05-12-2020, 11:04 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,807
I'm late to the game here but could someone explain to me what a "perjury trap" is? Is that where you question someone under oath and they choose to lie? Is it key to such a trap that the person being questioned believes that there's no way you could already know the truth? I understand perjury, its the trap part I need explained.

BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too. It was more ammo for down the road. That piece of road could be twenty minutes later or at trial where his value as a defense witness would be limited due to credibility issues.
  #82  
Old 05-12-2020, 11:14 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too.
How DARE you!
  #83  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:03 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too.
Hey, maybe you can answer something. Can you imagine a circumstance in the course of a lengthy investigation where you didn't want to interview someone one day, and then did want to interview that same person three weeks later?

I'm only asking because certain people seem to be advancing a nonsensical view that once one person on the investigation team advances an opinion that they don't see a reason to interview someone, that that person is forever immune from being interviewed, especially three weeks later. Or something. I'm not 100% sure because it is a nonsense argument.
  #84  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
The TV says that Judge Sullivan isn't rolling over just yet - giving time for amicus briefs, whatever that means. I suppose that's a hopeful sign for fans of the rule of law.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #85  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:20 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I'm late to the game here but could someone explain to me what a "perjury trap" is? Is that where you question someone under oath and they choose to lie? Is it key to such a trap that the person being questioned believes that there's no way you could already know the truth? I understand perjury, its the trap part I need explained.

BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too. It was more ammo for down the road. That piece of road could be twenty minutes later or at trial where his value as a defense witness would be limited due to credibility issues.
The "perjury trap" theory on why Flynn should (according to the right) get a pass HAS been questioned in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
People on the right are very fond of this defense of Flynn, judging by its ubiquity. But how does that work in the case of the particular lies Flynn was found to have uttered? How was he "trapped" into saying those things?

Here's a reminder about Flynn's lies:

(my emphasis) https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3

Again, how was Flynn "trapped" into making those statements?
You'll be shocked to learn that neither the Flynn-defender I was addressing, nor any other defending Flynn, have (to date) attempted to answer those questions.






(The AP article excerpts referred to are available at the original post.)
  #86  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:27 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The TV says that Judge Sullivan isn't rolling over just yet - giving time for amicus briefs, whatever that means. I suppose that's a hopeful sign for fans of the rule of law.
Apparently it means that the judge is welcoming other groups to argue the position that the guy who pleaded guilty to something he was caught red handed doing is guilty because the US department of Justice no longer wants to make that argument. Considering 2000 former DOJ employees signed a document expressing their displeasure, I reckon there will be some takers.
  #87  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:38 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I'm late to the game here but could someone explain to me what a "perjury trap" is? Is that where you question someone under oath and they choose to lie? Is it key to such a trap that the person being questioned believes that there's no way you could already know the truth? I understand perjury, its the trap part I need explained.

BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too. It was more ammo for down the road. That piece of road could be twenty minutes later or at trial where his value as a defense witness would be limited due to credibility issues.
I'll take a shot. (IANAL.)

A perjury trap is kind of a unicorn. In real law, it doesn't much exist.

It's a situation that's a complete dick move. A prosecutor brings up something he/she knows a reluctant witness may lie about in an effort to coerce testimony from that witness, isn't material to the case at bar, and is employed solely for the purpose of being able to bring a charge of perjury against the witness. The perjury charge is leverage against the witness.

Maybe the witness suffered an embarrassing arrest in his past, say something like statutory rape. Let's say the matter was worked out as a diversion and the charges were dismissed as though they had never been brought. The episode has nothing to do with the case for which the witness is intended to testify.

But the prosecutor, seeking an indictment in the new case, asks the witness in front of the grand jury, "Have you ever been arrested for the crime of rape?" The witness, caught off guard and having had the charges diverted/dismissed, says, "No!"

Technically not true. He was arrested for the crime of rape.

That's a perjury trap.

As you have wisely discerned, the way to avoid a "perjury trap" is to simply... not lie.

Prosecutors who employ such tactics may become vulnerable to charges of prosecutorial misconduct.
  #88  
Old 05-12-2020, 07:40 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Apparently it means that the judge is welcoming other groups to argue the position that the guy who pleaded guilty to something he was caught red handed doing is guilty because the US department of Justice no longer wants to make that argument. Considering 2000 former DOJ employees signed a document expressing their displeasure, I reckon there will be some takers.
Very excellent move by Judge Sullivan. You reckon correct, I b'lieve.
  #89  
Old 05-13-2020, 06:20 PM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,351
BOOM:
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/stat...01547891240967
  #90  
Old 05-13-2020, 06:50 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo View Post
Also hearing arguments for criminal contempt for declaring under oath that he was guilty since he now claims that he wasn't.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 05-13-2020 at 06:53 PM.
  #91  
Old 05-13-2020, 06:53 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo View Post
Wow. Good for Sullivan. That took some guts.
  #92  
Old 05-13-2020, 07:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Awesome!
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #93  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:03 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 7,006
Check it out:

Quote:
The federal judge overseeing the criminal case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn appointed a hard-charging former prosecutor and judge on Wednesday to argue against the Justice Department in its effort to drop the case ...

As a prosecutor in Brooklyn, Judge Gleeson rose to legal stardom when he successfully prosecuted the notorious mobster John Gotti.
He got Gotti and now he's going after Barr ... I need some popcorn! ;-)
  #94  
Old 05-14-2020, 10:34 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,811
1) Flynn "made a series of materially false statements" to the FBI during a properly authorized investigation.

2) "FLYNN’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election”

3) Flynn PLED GUILTY to this crime.

All the garbage about the investigation being somehow tainted or the "perjury trap" bullshit is just a desperate attempt to cover for this administration. Nothing changed from when he pled guilty to now, except Barr is now emboldened by the Republican party to ignore crimes and to cover up for this administration. It's a travesty of justice.

And it (and the responses from the Republican's lackeys here) is entirely predictable.

Last edited by Hamlet; 05-14-2020 at 10:35 AM.
  #95  
Old 05-14-2020, 03:58 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,774
Don't just take our word for it, listen to someone you trust.

"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies." - Donald J. Trump
  #96  
Old 05-14-2020, 11:02 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
Check it out:

He got Gotti and now he's going after Barr ... I need some popcorn! ;-)
and the head of DOJ Criminal Division who oversaw prosecution on that case... none other than Bobby "Three Sticks" Mueller.
  #97  
Old 05-18-2020, 11:30 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,663
YouTube channel LegalEagle has posted a very good and thorough run-down of what is happening with the Flynn case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cid38A_9e04
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #98  
Old 05-18-2020, 11:32 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
3) Flynn PLED GUILTY to this crime.
He did that twice.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #99  
Old 05-20-2020, 10:09 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Hey, maybe you can answer something. Can you imagine a circumstance in the course of a lengthy investigation where you didn't want to interview someone one day, and then did want to interview that same person three weeks later?

I'm only asking because certain people seem to be advancing a nonsensical view that once one person on the investigation team advances an opinion that they don't see a reason to interview someone, that that person is forever immune from being interviewed, especially three weeks later. Or something. I'm not 100% sure because it is a nonsense argument.
Late to the thread again. I assume this is a rhetorical question but, of course. Its practically the rule and not an exception.

Judge Sullivan took a ballsy step. This could well end up in the USSC and, with decisions coming along party lines, we all know how it will end. Will the day ever come where the USSC says "No" to Trump?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017