Judge in Flynn case orders Mueller to turn over interview docs after bombshell claim of FBI pressure
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One day after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's legal team made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House, the federal judge overseeing Flynn's criminal case is demanding answers from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government's documents and "memoranda" related to the questioning. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel's office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.
Sullivan -- who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light -- is weighing how to sentence Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities in the Russia probe during that interview in the West Wing. Flynn faced mounting legal bills that forced him to sell his home amid the prosecution, and Mueller has already recommended he receive no prison time.
The judge's brief order states that Mueller can choose to file the materials under seal if necessary.
Sullivan also ordered the Flynn team to turn over the documents backing up its assertions. The judge could determine why the FBI apparently took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency's sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.
Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday -- but Sullivan's move might delay that date, or lead to other dramatic and unexpected changes in the case. Sullivan even has the authority to toss Flynn's guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn's constitutional right to counsel, although he has given no indications that he intends to do so.
Federal authorities undertaking a national security probe are ordinarily under no obligation to inform interviewees of their right to an attorney unless they are in custody, as long as agents do not act coercively. Flynn's lawyers claimed in Tuesday's filing that FBI brass had threatened to escalate the matter to involve the Justice Department if Flynn sought the advice of the White House Counsel before talking with agents.
Sullivan, first appointed a judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and then to the D.C. federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, could also assess why the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn -- including fired anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok -- would have provided an Aug. 22, 2017 date on their so-called "302" report documenting what Flynn told them during their conversation at the White House.
The August date on the FBI 302 cited by the Flynn team is nearly seven months after the Flynn interview took place, and about a week after reports surfaced that Strzok had been summarily removed from Mueller's Russia probe because his persistent anti-Trump communications had surfaced.
So-called 302 reports are ostensibly contemporaneous accounts by agents of what is said during their interviews with witnesses and subjects, as well as other critical details like interviewees' demeanor and descriptions of where the interview took place. They are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI typically does not audio- or video-record interviews.
In June, Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, charged that the FBI may have "edited and changed" key witness reports in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations. Meadows also raised the possibility that the FBI misled the Department of Justice watchdog in an attempt to hide the identities of FBI employees who were caught sending anti-Trump messages along with Strzok.
Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies," according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.
In a lengthy court filing Tuesday, Flynn's attorneys alleged that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities.
The document outlines, with striking new details, the rapid sequence of events that led to Flynn's sudden fall from the Trump administration.
While Flynn is among several Trump associates to have been charged with making false statements as part of the Russia probe, no one interviewed during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation was hit with false statement charges – though investigators believed some witnesses, including Clinton herself, were untruthful.
According to Flynn's legal team, FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
If “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used, ... to try to refresh his recollection," FBI agents wrote in the 302 report cited by the filing, which Sullivan has ordered both the Flynn team and the FBI to produce by Friday. "If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, ... they would not confront him or talk him through it.”
According to the 302 as described in the filing, Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” as he gave the agents a "little tour" of his West Wing office.
McCabe -- who was fired earlier this year for making unauthorized media leaks and violating FBI policy -- wrote in a memorandum that shortly after noon on Jan. 24, 2017, he called Flynn on his secure line at the White House, and the two briefly discussed an unrelated FBI training session at the White House. Quickly, the conversation turned to a potential interview, according to an account provided by McCabe cited in the Tuesday filing.
McCabe reportedly testified later that the agents, after speaking with Flynn, “didn’t think he was lying" at the time.
In his order, Sullivan requested Mueller turn over not only the Flynn 302, but also a memo written by McCabe and any similar documents in the FBI's possession. Sullivan similarly demanded that Flynn's lawyers produce the McCabe memorandum and 302 they used to make their assertions.
(Separately, Sullivan ruled last month that Clinton must answer more questions under oath about her use of a private email server to store classified documents. But the hard-charging judge has not been easy on the Trump administration: In August, he threatened to hold then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of court when he learned that authorities were in the process of deporting a woman and her child while a court heard her legal appeal, calling immigration officials' actions "pretty outrageous.")
McCabe purportedly said in the memo that he told Flynn he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” to discuss his contacts with Russian officials.
“I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only," McCabe wrote, according to the Flynn filing. "I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [General Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants."
Explaining why Flynn was not warned about the possible consequences of making false statements, one of the agents wrote in the 302 cited by Flynn's lawyers that FBI brass had "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport."
The tactics were apparently in sharp contrast to the FBI's approach to interviewing former Trump aide George Papadopoulos, who also pleaded guilty to making false statements and was recently released from prison. In a court filing last year, Special Counsel Mueller's team took pains to note that FBI agents who interviewed Papadopoulos on Jan. 27, 2017 -- just days after the Flynn interview -- had advised Papadopoulos that "lying to them 'is a federal offense'" and that he could get "in trouble" if he did not tell the truth.
The revelations in the court filing, if accurate, would also sharply differ from the FBI's handling of its interview with then-presidential candidate Clinton in 2016, during the height of the presidential campaign. Clinton brought a total of nine lawyers to her interview -- a number that fired FBI Director James Comey said was "unusual ... but not unprecedented" in House testimony in September.
A scathing report released earlier this year by the Department of Justice's inspector general (IG) found that the FBI had taken actions "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" by allowing former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson to sit in on the Clinton interview -- even though "they had also both served as lawyers for Clinton after they left the State Department."
In fact, the IG wrote, FBI officials fretted about how many FBI representatives should be at the interview, for fear of prejudicing Clinton against the agency if, as expected, she went on to become president.
“[S]he might be our next president," FBI attorney Lisa Page wrote, in urging that the number of people at the interview be limited to four or six. "The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”
The IG report further noted: “Witnesses told us, and contemporaneous emails show, that the FBI and Department officials who attended Clinton’s interview found that her claim that she did not understand the significance of the ‘(C)’ marking strained credulity. (FBI) Agent 1 stated, ‘I filed that in the bucket of hard to impossible to believe.’"
Strzok, who was one of the two agents who interviewed Flynn and who was later also fired for violating FBI policies, had compromised the FBI's appearance of impartiality by sending a slew of anti-Trump texts on his government-issued phone, the IG concluded.
“In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the IG report said.
In one of those texts, Strzok wrote to Page in 2016 that Trump would not become president because "we'll stop" it from happening.
"Even when circumstances later came to light that prompted extensive public debate about the investigation of General Flynn, including revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January 24 interview of General Flynn were themselves being investigated for misconduct, General Flynn did not back away from accepting responsibility for his actions," Flynn's lawyers wrote in the filing Tuesday.
Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February 2017 for misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials about his contacts with Russian officials. In arguing that Flynn should receive no more than a year of probation and 200 hours of community service for making false statements to federal investigators, his lawyers Tuesday emphasized his service in the U.S. Army and lack of criminal record.
In a sentencing memo earlier this month, Mueller recommended a lenient sentence -- with the possibility of no prison time -- for Flynn, stating he has offered "substantial" help to investigators about "several ongoing investigations."
Meanwhile, Comey revealed in closed-door testimony with House Republicans on Friday that he deliberately concealed an explosive memorandum about his one-on-one Oval Office meeting with President Trump in February 2017 from top Department of Justice officials.
The former FBI head also acknowledged that when the agency initiated its counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government in July 2016, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."
His remarks square with testimony this summer from former FBI lawyer Page, whose anti-Trump texts became a focus of House GOP oversight efforts. Page told Congress in a closed-door deposition that "even as far as May 2017" -- more than nine months after the counterintelligence probe commenced -- "we still couldn't answer the question" as to whether Trump staff had improperly colluded with Russia.
By Gregg Re
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
83 visitors
It is time to consider methods
If the doj had treated the Clinton email investigation like it did Flynn, a lot of Clinton world would be in jail. Instead the doj handed out immunity “get out of jail free” deals like it was Halloween, and they didn’t even have to say trick or treat to get them.
Who investigates the people, who are investigating the people, that are investigating the people of criminal activity?
Inquiring minds would like to know .....
False Comment
It's kind of obvious to any objective human being. What is laughable is the people who pretend that Hillary Clinton went through a real investigation.
She didn't?
Then what was all that Benghazi, whitewater, and several other investigations conducted by the Republicans?
Why were so many jumping up and down when the FBI investigated her..with comments like "When the FBI investigates, you're guilty"
Then Comey makes his report and says "Yes, there were violations but prosecutors won't charge her because it's not winable because no mens rea"
Obviously it wasn't what you wanted to hear and cried scam.
Trey Gowdy gets appointed to lead the investigations and the many of the folks here strutting about " Trey's a top notch prosecutor, the best, she's so screwed" Only to find she wiped the floor with his ass much to the rights embarrassment.
This is so much fun watching so many here try to come up with all sorts of excuses for their failures..to the point where it becomes the doings of "The Deep State" that you can't identify...but it's not the rights fault, it's The Deep State.
Yeah, keep hanging on to that.
[deleted]
removed for context
Their delusions about Hillary have truly gone off the scale.
Why is it that every time the far right uses the term 'bombshell' it turns out to be a dud ladyfinger firecracker?
A tale of two investigations:
"In a combative exchange at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C., a federal judge unabashedly accused career State Department officials of lying and signing "clearly false" affidavits to derail a series of lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth also said he was "shocked" and "dumbfounded" when he learned that FBI had granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills during its investigation into the use of Clinton's server, according to a court transcript of his remarks.
"I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case," Lamberth said during the hearing."
And everything on Fox is true? You have been misinformed.
What a lot of lying far right wing propaganda.
What an unsupported biased comment.
Stop back when you can have a real dialogue as opposed to throwing stuff against the wall in hopes it will stick.
Stop when you actually have the court documents and realize that Muller won't comply because it's an on going investigation and a judge cant
force that unless it's going to be sealed. Dohhhhhhh
As Dershowitz has been saying for quite some time now:
"The idea of trying to create crimes just because we disagree politically, and target , really endangers democracy. [It] reminds me of what the head of the KGB said to Stalin: 'Show me the man, and I will find you the crime,' " Dershowitz told John Catsimatidis on New York's AM 970 in an interview that aired on Sunday. "
You mean like a 3 year old article about an old employee in California posing as a policeman and you say Kemala Harris is trying to mount her own police force?
Gee, what happened to that seed? Didn't you want real dialogue?
good thing Hillary isn't potus
cause the GOP would have investigated the hell out of the most investigated woman in the world,
cause as we know, and have seen, there are
TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE sets of rules and behavior codes for the gop, compared to all else
.
what could possibly go wrong, if people refused to believe the realty between real and fake newz
.
don't pack luggage yet, but u may wish to inspect it,
but
I'm flexible,
I stretched a few years back
do you think "her" investigations ever ended?
killary is going down hard. no stopping it this time round.
youre sounding a gram n a 1/2 shy of an 8 ball
[Removed] - read the article - might actually give you some insight.
Wake up Wally, it's not dream time.
I'll assume you mean Hillary. In any case, the right has been saying exactly that for 20 years... But 'i'm sure you'll get her this time...I mean, since the last 9 republican led investigations were so successful. LMFAO!
Hahah, sure. Wishfull thinking....
No, because every time the Republicans came up with nothing they would start over again. Because they just can't seem to prove the lies they spouted.
Just look at the number of GOP that are in jail or under indictment or being currently being investigate then look at your statement again. It shows the comment #4 is just more GOP fake news.
Patience, patience. Trump is scared for a reason, and those indictments have gotten closer and closer to Trump with each one. If you want to live in fantasyland and pretend Trump is just fine, ok, denial can be a sanity saver when the news is dire. He knows, people who actually pay attention can find out more when they look deeper too. But its so strange to hear you try to take Trump out of the equation, he is the common thread between them all. And he is scared shitless for a reason.
So you are one who really believe that the FBI really investigated Hillary Clinton?
TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE sets of rules and behavior codes for the gop, compared to all else
It sure looks that way!!!
GOP had YEARS to find something on Hillary. They controlled the government and investigated everything they could think of to find dirt on her, and they had help from Putin. With all that, THEY FOUND NOTHING CRIMINAL. AFTER YEARS!!!! So put up or STFU, gop.
And speaking of totally separate rules, why aren't you celebrating the new incoming investigations? Seemed to like them before. The difference between them? They got nothing on Hillary. Because there was nothing to get except the little they did. Why are you so afraid of what investigations will turn up with Trump? Why are you fine with no tax returns for Trump? The double standards you have are ridiculous. Now where the hell is Trump's (birth certificate) tax returns? Nancy will get them for us.
Oh Please.....You saw the so called investigation Obama's FBI conducted.
The double standards you have are ridiculous
You are so objective
Sure did! And we saw the 9 that the Republicans did....and NADA, NOTHING, ZIPPO, the Republicans were left standing DIH.
Your turn now. The dems have House committees. Let them ask for documents and send subpoenas. Let's see how good they do. BTW the only difference will be, when they get stonewalled it will be front page news.
And they will...they will also dig back in to the documents and evidence that Issa, and Nunes hid during the hearings.
I can't wait to see what they hid. Might be Mueller time for Nunes too.
Yep. Watching Nunes sputter and stumble when it's his turn is going to be a fun watch.
I wonder if they'll drag " fireball" Issa back for a discussion?
they were holding each other
Standing with each other DIH?
I guess they gotta do something when there's no underage one's around.
"Politics" is such a fun freebie "Sport" !
You can sit back and have "Fun" Spending Uber amounts of the other citizens (Tax Payer) monies, just trying to dig up any "Stuff" on the "Other Guy/Gal Political type" !
The Ideological paying (stupid shit) FANS eat it up !
"Stupid shits" no not what they allow from the "Government for the Government" !
I'm in the WRONG business for sure !
BENDOVERGHAZI comes to mind
Why, Hello there, Fletch!
thats what i yell at the dog
"Murder" ...…. IS FINITE !
One of Native American's favorite phrases from Ronnie - "We're from the government and we're here to help you."
I have been more and more confused regarding the actual relationship between the FBI and the DOJ. If I'm not mistaken, the FBI is under the authority of the DOJ, right?
If that is a true fact, why would McCade state that he would get DOJ involved if Flynn wasn't cooperative? "I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice." So, if McCade is working as the DOJ chair performing FBI work, why would the DOJ already not be involved?
Don't ya just love the word if
McCabe was the Deputy Director of the FBI, NOT a 'DOJ chair performing FBI work'. If Flynn was going to have legal counsel, the government should too...
And the FBI has no attorneys?
I'm sure they do. Point?
He was making a joke, but I know for a fact that he wished he could have had that one back.....
Yes the FBI IS the investigative arm of the DOJ.....
They were, they just failed to inform LTG Flynn of that fact. how is one supposed to inform a suspect of that fact?
MIRANDA! All suspects MUST be informed of their right to counsel before any questioning or interrogations. Directly on point with thousands and thousands of precedents to back it up. The issue being raised is was LTG Flynn entrapped into making incriminating statements by agents acting as if they are all one great buddy buddy friendship all on the same side crap....... That is the argument Flynn's lawyers are making and one the judge sees is a possibility. So he demands every scrap of the investigative record from Mueller, and the evidence the Lawyers are basing this argument on for his own legal consideration/investigation.
If he was entrapped, it all goes away.
But the Judge is going even farther. he's looking at bias in investigation overall given the involvement of agents in the Flynn matter that have been fired from the investigation for bias..... and his example is that these same people who may have entrapped Flynn are the same people that gave Cheryl Mills immunity from prosecution in the Hillary e-mails investigation AFTER he himself had made a ruling that Mills was a proven perjurer (LIAR) and NOTHING she ever says should be considered as truthful.
So he wants EVERYTHING. looking specifically for bias and illegality or ethics violations in Mueller's investigation.....
And if he finds it. The investigation Mueller is doing will then have an irreconcilable ethics issue.... It's validity will be directly in question as will the veracity of anything they charge....
As a potential offshoot? it could effectively give a legal basis for reopening the Hillary E-mail issues on the basis of a biased Hillary favorable tainted investigation by the FBI & DOJ....
Which surprisingly is the exact same issue that Comey is under re-oopened investigations for....
I don't know how it will turn out, but yeah 1st, you hit right on target with the real issues that the judge is looking at......
They should have informed Flynn of his rights.....
This is a stretch. There is nothing wrong with them saying, if you want lawyers present then we will have lawyers on hand as well.
All some are doing is trying anything they can to hang something on Clinton. They even contradict themselves. Saying Clinton should not have people in the room while saying Flynn should have.
Even if they think or found some agents not acting appropriately, it is not on Clinton.
When did Flynn allegedly say this. The article doesn't support this statement, nor does Flynn's filing. If it was during the hearing, one would think that Fox would link the transcript...
So what?
Its true.
Thank you for proving ANOTHER link that doesn't support the claim.
Based on WHAT? Neither article includes a QUOTE that states that the FBI 'pushed' or 'urged' Flynn to do anything. Innuendo does NOT count...
Lol, Its based McCabe and his agents own accounts.
Lol, yeah right. Unless of course it puts something "Trump" in a bad light right?
[Removed]
McCabe's account does not indicate that he 'pushed' or 'urged' Flynn to do anything either.
What 'hypocrisy' are you referring to Sparty? If you are going to accuse me of something, the LEAST you can do is cite it specifically.
Clearly you didn't read the article since it clearly states that which you say it doesn't. That or you're playing another one of your stupid little internet games. My money is on the former.
Okay Dulay, no problem.
Specifically, the entire body of work here when related to just about anything Trump related. Those biases are clearly evident based on that body of work.
Clearly you didn't READ the Flynn Sentencing Memo, which BOTH articles allege is the source of their fantasy. I did and NOWHERE in that Memo does Flynn claim that the FBI 'pushed' or 'urged' him to do anything. Neither of the articles QUOTE either Flynn of the memo making that claim. The authors of BOTH articles are reading shit into the Memo that DOES NOT EXIST.
You said hypocrisy Sparty, NOT bias. Why deflect?
I had no idea that you followed my every post here on NT. Kind of creepy.
BTFW, you obviously have a different definition of 'specifically' than I do.
Play your little word games, in the meantime the truth in how and why the Flynn case was handle the way it was and why others were not, is slowly coming to light. And take it to the bank, you're not gonna like it. The man behind the curtain is just starting to be exposed .... stay tuned buttercups, hopefully you are buckled up.
Lol, hardly. I read enough but who in their right mind could stomach all of that biased nonsense? Certainly not me. [Deleted. Please do not take members quotes out] of [context.]
IMO, one possible scenario.
Trump will likely be approached by members of Congress as Republicans more and more fear the Trump precipitated political shit storm; he will be asked to resign with no pardon for himself in exchange for no indictments brought against him NOR HIS CHILDREN!
Even Fox News is calling Trump a liar!
The handwriting is on the wall and we will soon see who the real buttercups are.
Even the Huge Liberal Hillary Supporter ….. Alan Dershowitz..... has been Calling all this "Investigative Gotchya" stuff.....a friggin joke !
"Does that sound like a crime to you?" Dershowitz shot back. “I don’t like criminal investigations to start on hoping that you have the target, maybe we’ll find the crime, maybe we’ll find the statute – and if we can’t find the statute, we’ll stretch the statute to fit the person," Dersh said. "That sounds like Lavrentiy Beria [Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief] and Joseph Stalin! he added. "'Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.' I don't want to ever see that come to America."
AND STILL DOES to this day !
And get this...… Nancy wants to drag us into a Tax Return Investigation, to just get a look at Trumps Tax return, even though Rachel Madcow already showed us one of his returns on National TV. Rachel Had egg on her face then. Does Nancy like "Eggs" too ?
Dershowitz now comments on Fox if I am not mistaken and he has been an apologist for the Trump administration in recent times.
But, I will check myself on this and go back and look, and if I have misspoken, will return, and, correct the record.
It’s ironic if not hypocrisy to fail to cite Trump as the great acuser and liar ... Dershowitz has sold his soul in my opinion.
So !
He was saying the same stuff during the Bill Clinton whoring investigation.
Because Alan is on Fox and saying the same about the Trump investigation as he said about the Clinton investigation, he's not viable anymore to you ?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
So !
"Witness credibility" equivalent issue.
He was saying the same stuff during the Bill Clinton whoring investigation.
That persona is one of "contrarianism," it gets attention because it is inherently controversial and confrontational; before the internet, it was referred to as "selling newspapers." Take it from a retired newspaper editor and a gut who likes confrontation.
Because Alan is on Fox and saying the same about the Trump investigation as he said about the Clinton investigation, he's not viable anymore to you ?
He s not credible regardless of what he may have been in the past.What the Hell Is Alan Dershowitz Even Talking About Anymore?
People may not want him hanging around their fancy-schmancy Martha’s Vineyard parties anymore, but attorney and world-renowned attention hog Alan Dershowitz is always welcome at Fox News these days.
Speaking with Fox & Friends on Monday , The Dersh was full of apocalyptic forecasts and ominous warnings for anyone who’d be dumb enough to think that the president might be involved in some extremely illegal stuff which we should maybe investigate.
“They have targeted the president, they have targeted his business,” Dershowitz lamented to Fox’s Brian Kilmeade. “Some of them are trivial. The emoluments clause business—forget about it, that’s going nowhere. Again, he has a constitutional defense.
I didn't see the deleted comment, but, It Is ME is a friend and I take him at his word.
We always vehemently disagree on politics but it's never personal.
"Witness credibility" equivalent issue.
You are reveling in logical fallacies.
hat persona is one of "contrarianism,"
It's called having principles. He's a liberal who, like the majority of the country supported Clinton's perjury. That's the opposite of "contrarianism."
It's Liberals that don't want him hanging around them anymore. He tows the line of true constitutionality, not the "Liberal" version of the "Ever Changing" Constitution.
"Liberals" ALWAYS seem to "Eat their own" if they don't tow the EXACT line like they want.
Dershowitz Defended John Edwards whoring payoffs too !
You remember Democrat "John Edwards" dontchya ?
And I'm sure you find Dershowitz to be a Pedophile too now. He Supposedly hung with Billy Clinton on the "Lolita Flights" afterall.
Unbelievable !
Contrarian journalism is characterised by articles and books making counterintuitive claims, or attacking what is said to be the conventional wisdom (a phrase attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith ) on a given topic. A typical contrarian trope takes the form, "everything you know about topic X is wrong"
‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’
How a liberal Harvard professor became Trump’s most distinguished defender on TV, freaked out his friends and got the legal world up in arms.
Opposing him were a National Review writer and a former FBI agent, arguing that the special investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign is well within the bounds of American law. Dershowitz, along with a conservative columnist for the Washington Examiner , was making the case that the Mueller investigation is dangerous to our entire system. In the room, which is normally a comedy club, it was impossible to shake the feeling that something was off. Two years ago, it would’ve seemed far more natural for the quartet to swap partners and switch sides.
By EVAN MANDERY
May 11, 2018
Reality !
He's talked about it this year.
Only a "Moral" issue, not a "Legal" issue.
Dershowitz has never said that an investigation is against the law.....EVER !
What Dershowitz has been saying is : "the Mueller investigation is dangerous to our entire system."
In case you haven't figured it out, when Government comes for you, they ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS !
That's all this investigation has been about since day one. "Gotchya.....YOU LIED" !
That's all Billdo's investigation ended up being about. "Depends on what "IS"......is !
Thanks A.Mac. !
You and I .…. well …… lets say …..... Friends come to mind all the time !
deleted
[deleted. Stop] with [the meta. Next time you'll get points.]
Either something is a fact or it isn't.
BOTH articles make claims that their reporting do not support.
You, stated that my comments are hypocritical, which is a practice that can be observed objectively and can be viewed as nothing other than an insult.
When asked to be specific about the hypocrisy that you allege, you obfuscate and start blathering about bias, which is subjective and many here, including myself, readily admit to.
So IMHO, YOU are the one playing 'little word games' Sparty.
You said that you were basing your claim of my comments being hypocritical on my 'entire body of work', now you admit that was false. It speaks to a lack of credibility and good faith.
You haven't changed much since becoming a member of NT.
Carry on.
Flynn had lied about his Russia contact A WEEK BEFORE THE INTERVIEW! The agents were giving him an opportunity to walk it back!
Believe if you wish that an individual of Flynn's background didn't know that it's a crime to lie to the FBI.
That's Mueller's claim. A Federal Judge will determine if the Mueller team went over the line. Remember "Civil Liberties"!
I'm sure he did, but that doesn't mean he is no longer entitled to his rights..... Unless your making the statement that the Warren Court of the '60's got it wrong....
Miranda is as absolute as black is to white..... It also has been supported in every court of competent jurisdiction ever since....
I'm also absolutely sure that the agents knew they were interrogating and would use anything they got against him....
The LAW required a Miranda warning, they didn't give him one according to his counsel. heck he didn't even have his own counsel when they did it. (white house counsel could easily be argued wasn't "His" counsel) The issue is a proper one to bring up at any time and if proven is usually fatal to the case at bar....
Brush up on your criminal law my friend.....
Miranda only applies if you are under arrest.
Very Very true. but in considering Miranda one must also consider the Massiah Doctrine and the Voluntariness Standard when considering whether a confession or an interrogation was voluntary and of a suspects free will.... Miranda may not apply and still a confession or interrogation must be discarded or overruled and hence everything that stemmed from it discarded.
Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964) decided after Miranda, (and based partly upon it) stands for a 6th amendment protection of the right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Specific coercion that prevents an attorney from being present during questioning are usually thrown out as involuntary. And any example of police agents using trickery to get a suspect to reject the presence of an attorney when the suspect raises the issue as almost an automatic involuntary situation violating his 6th amendment rights.....
There is also the Voluntariness Standard:
The Massiah rule is also to be contrasted with the voluntariness standard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The voluntariness standard applies to all police interrogations regardless of the custodial status of the suspect and regardless of whether the suspect has been formally charged. The remedy for a violation of the standard is complete suppression of the statement and any evidence derived from the statement.
It is very concisely explained on the wiki page.... Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964) And
Justia's listing... Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
CASEbreifs listing... Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
Since the clear issue of attorney representation was made and the agents "convinced" LTG Flynne that he didn't need one, their purpose comes into direct question as to what their intent was. If there intent was to get the General to incriminate himself, then clearly it is a 6th amendment violation and it all goes away.
If that wasn't their purpose, and it was simply a conversation between "Good buddies" "On the same side" then they shouldn't have used the information against him and it goes away that way....
The Voluntariness Standard if violated becomes a complete wiping of the case concerning LTG Flynn his conviction, his "Confession" and everything dreived from it goes completely out the window, with extremely serious issues being raised as to the methods being used by Mueller and his band of merry men....
This has the potential to turn the whole political world upside down all over again gutting the Mueller investigation completely as a political hatchet job.....
And once we reach Mueller as being questionable, we reach the FBI under Mueller as questionable, we reach the Hillary Clinton investigation as questionable.....
The stakes are getting higher and higher.
And I'm now convinced that this is a political witch hunt.... Beyond any reasonable doubt....
Is there anything they won't deny? They deny that there is a world of difference between the Hillary investigation and the "Russia" investigation. They deny that certain people get charged for violating the FARA Act and others don't. They deny that some get charged for perjury and others don't. Now they deny the aggressive tactics the Mueller team used on Flynn.
The seed is about the Jan. 24, 2017 interview with Flynn. The 'Mueller team' had NOTHIING to do with it.
It"s called Entrapment or as Professor Jonathan Turley described it - "they put him in a cage and shot him"
It's ironic that every time a Republican gets nailed, y'all label it as entrapment or a perjury trap...
Trump said Flynn lied to Pence, Pence said Flynn lied. Was THAT Entrapment?
In the 2 hours between the call and the FBI arriving, Flynn could have picked up the phone or got off his ass and walk over to McGahn's office and told him that the FBI just contacted him. Flynn, Trump's choice for NSA Director, HAD to know that his communication with the Russian Ambassador was recorded.
All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. Period, full stop.
These are easy to avoid, it's called telling the truth, which Flynn clearly did not do.
The right can spin all they want, at the end of the day, Flynn lied and he knew lying under oath is a crime. Hell, most kids know that lying under oath is a crime.
"I mean what else was the lying sack supposed to do? If you prick him, does he not bleed? If you put him in a cage, does he not lie? They had his conversation taped but then they had to ask him about it, how could they? Since they already knew what he said they didn't need to ask him giving him the opportunity to be truthful when they know damn well he was going to lie! I mean the nerve of some investigators aggressively asking Flynn questions they knew he would lie about. Hasn't the poor man been through enough?..." /s
He was discouraged from having an attorney present. On the other hand the same agents allowed Hillary Clinton to have her attorney (a witness in the case) present. Clinton answered questions with no notes taken. In the case of Flynn the notes which are supposed to be contemporaneous were compiled 7 months later. Agents who initially interviewed Flynn thought he was being truthful. Months later under Mueller, they are charging him with perjury - over something that was perfectly legal.
That dosen't sound like America. It sounds more like Castro's Cuba.
You come to that conclusion based on WHAT?
Ask yourself this: Why the hell would Flynn care if McCabe 'involved' the DOJ?
Flynn's lawyers stated that he had worked with the FBI before. Do you think that Flynn, a former General, is unaware that the DOJ oversees the FBI? Hell, even Trump knows that...
False. The FBI's notes of Clinton's interview were released to the public.
The LIE isn't perfectly legal. So why did Flynn LIE about it?
It sounds JUST LIKE America. LEOs LIE to people all the time, every day. They coerce, intimidate witnesses and defendants and question them without lawyers all the time, every day.
You ask yourself this: Why would agent Strzok interview Flynn in January of 2017, without a 302 report (which is standard procedure), ask Flynn questions which Flynn answered along with telling Strzok "you already know what was said" and which left Strzok to conclude he was being honest. Then in August Mueller interviews Strzok (finally compilling a 302) and then determining that Flynn committed perjury? Do you think there is something odd there?
False. The FBI's notes of Clinton's interview were released to the public.
TRUE:
"Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday."
The LIE isn't perfectly legal. So why did Flynn LIE about it?
Good question. Why the guilty plea? To save his son?
Link?
What I find odd it that you think that what the FBI did is far more relevant than what Flynn did. Trump fired Flynn in February 2017. Trump didn't ask to read the 302 and he didn't give a shit who interviewed Flynn. Flynn LIED to the FBI AND allegedly to the VP. Flynn went from an asset to a liability and since Trump is transactional, he abhors liabilities. Trump also hats bad press and Flynn was a nightmare...
Neither did Flynn yet he STILL pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which BTFW is illegal.
The 'good question' was why did Flynn lie.
You've had plenty of time to read Flynn's plea for yourself. You can throw out all the innuendo you wish BUTT by claiming that Flynn pled guilty for any other reason than the FACT that he LIED to the FBI means that you believe that Flynn LIED in his signed plea document.
But that is NOT what the FBI originally said:
"There was also a lot of concern in Congress, at least among Republicans, about the leak of the wiretapped Flynn-Kislyak conversation. Such intelligence is classified at the highest level of secrecy, yet someone — Republicans suspected Obama appointees in the Justice Department and intelligence community — revealed it to the press.
So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.
According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.
Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.
What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.
None of those congressional investigators has an answer; they're baffled by the turn of events. But they know they find the Flynn case troubling, from start to finish.
ndeed, it appears the FBI did not think Flynn had done anything wrong in the calls. On Jan. 23, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn-Kislyak calls and "has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government." (The calls had been intercepted by U.S. intelligence because the U.S. monitored the Russian ambassador's communications — something which Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, surely knew.)
Still, Flynn's conversation had the attention of the Obama Justice Department, and in particular of deputy attorney general Sally Yates, who reportedly believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act, a 218 year-old law under which no one had ever been successfully prosecuted. (Two people were charged in the 19th century, but the cases were dropped.)
Link?
"Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, indicated that he knew that American intelligence had been listening to Mr. Kislyak’s calls, former law enforcement officials have said."
Neither did Flynn yet he STILL pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is illegal. h BTF
Why? I'm not sure who violated the law, Flynn or Mueller
The 'good question' was why did Flynn lie.
Did he? Was he trapped into perjury? Maybe you might explain why Comey thought he was being truthful in January of 2017 and Mueller found the same interview to be perjury. As I say Flynn was protecting his son:
"The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair. Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions."
According to whom? Nunes?
There were only 3 people in the ONE meeting in question. So WHO are these 'sources familiar with'? Why would anyone believe info from anonymous sources?
The statement that you QUOTED is NOWHERE in that article.
Please provide a link that supports you quote.
Because Flynn lied.
Why don't you believe Flynn's own words?
Why don't you believe Flynn's own words?
Who can one be 'trapped into perjury'? BTFW, YOU posted a link that claims that Flynn knew that 'American intelligence had been listening'. So HOW could they 'trap' Flynn when he KNEW that they KNEW about his communications?
If you scenario is true, either Flynn is an utter idiot or thought he was bullet proof.
If Flynn pled just to save his son, he LIED in his plea.
[ deleted ] It has been posted on NT many times, but here I'll post it again:
"According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview."
Why would anyone believe info from anonymous sources?
Wow, that's rich. So you didn't believe the hundreds of anonymous sourced stories in the Times [ & ] Post for most of 2016? Good to know.
Please provide a link that supports you quote.
What I posted does an adequate job
Why don't you believe Flynn's own words?
Why would I place any credibility in a man who trusted Comey's FBI. Btw the info that Flynn provided involved his partners in the advocacy for Turkish interests. Obviously it was all a scheme to file charges against a top Trump official. Sound familiar?
Who can one be 'trapped into perjury'?
I believe you mean "how" can one be trapped into perjury. It's fairly simple. Take any conversation the FBI or CIA has taped. If a party to that conversation has already said something contrary to the conversation, minor or major, or obviously not remembering details, you simply send over Peter Strzok and a junior agent without notifying the WH counsel, get him relaxed and ask him the question about the desired detail.
Another question might be how do you protect somebody from prosecution? Again for Comey's FBI it's simple. You don't convene a grand jury, you don't let a field office handle the case, you give all the material witness's immunity, including the one who destroyed the evidence and you take over the decision in the case after the AG gets on a plane with the target of the investigation's husband. Then you simply claim that "intent' was needed for prosecution and claim there was no real intent as you hand down the decision that the FBI director has no authority to make.
That didn't work well, as the American public wasn't fooled and Miss Slime lost the election.
Deflection.
If you believe that, your standards are lacking. As I said, nothing in your link cites that quote. Continue in bad faith if you wish but don't pretend that you've supported your claim.
All evidence points to that 'desired detail' was whether he talked to Kislyak about sanctions. That's a 'detail' that one would expect the Director of the NSA to remember, especially since the conversation had happened less than a month before the interview.
More deflection.
You seem to cling to the crime of the century - that "Flynn lied and we got Trump". All you have is the deep state being exposed in a failed coup d'état. You see, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and even Rosenstein & Mueller have been ambushed by history. Trump was never supposed to have won and we were never supposed to know.
Perjury trap is nothing more than catching someone lying. No lies? No perjury trap. It's that simple.
Correct. However, what makes this odd was the need for it. Flynn lied to the President and his administration about a matter that was perfectly legal. The FBI knew all about it. They know EVERYTHING about Trump and all his people. Yet they took the opportunity to have him commit perjury. It was a process the Mueller team has repeated. All of those people have been squeezed for information on TRUMP. None of it has provided the desired result of Trump conspiracy with Russia. Now it's about a possible campaign finance violation.
How about we all just admit what this really is?
Did you forget that in Jan. 2017, the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation targeting RUSSIA?
Again, NOBODY had Flynn commit perjury. Flynn did that all on his own.
Y'all used to claim to be the party of personal responsibility. Now, not so much...
How many times have I referred to it? A counter intelligence investigation does not need a crime to be initiated, it is open ended and Obama used it to get a look at the Trump campaign. THEY GOT CAUGHT, BECAUSE THE UNEXPECTED HAPPENED - TRUMP WON. Comey, McCabe, Strzok and others are out. It's just the beginning.
It would be great if you explained that FACT to your brethren. They keep insisting that there has to be an underlying crime to start a counter intelligence investigation.
Again, LINK?
BTW, that's the FIFTH person you've blamed...
Doing WHAT? Please be specific...
Yes, yet y'all keep obsessing over them while Flynn, Manafort, Gates and others have been indicted and found guilty of ACTUAL crimes...
Why?
Here's the problem with the entire Mueller investigation: It is a criminal investigation disguised as a counter-intelligence investigation. Mueller is actively seeking crimes to prosecute, when in a counter-intelligence investigation you are looking at the vulnerabilities and exploits made by foreign actors on those vulnerabilities. Every politician and the media keeps calling the Mueller probe a counter-intelligence investigation, but Mueller isn't referring any crimes he finds to someone else to prosecute, he is having his team prosecute those crimes. Those are not the actions of a counter-intelligence investigation, they are the actions of a criminal investigation.
By actively pursuing criminal charges against Manafort, Flynn, and every other US national's involvement in the so-called Russian collusion investigation; Mueller and his team are acting as criminal investigators and prosecutors rather than intelligence investigators. The entire process of this investigation is essentially "authority creep", where a person's authority keeps increasing beyond their actual role. Mueller's role was supposed to be conducting a counter-intelligence investigation, which means that the only thing he should have been able to do is bring charges against foreign entities that tried to exploit our vulnerabilities after finding out what those vulnerabilities were. Instead, he has been bringing charges against anyone that he feels were involved and for anything he finds, with a couple of exceptions where he referred cases to other investigators.
False.
So your posit is that Mueller is acting on his FEELINGS? That Federal Judges are accepting guilty pleas based on Mueller's FEELINGS? That Federal Judges are sentencing people to incarceration based on Mueller's FEELEINGS?
Ridiculous.
You know that statement contradicts what you said before right?
So, I didn't put the caveat "in general" in front of the first quoted statement. Whoopdie-doo. If you bothered to use reading comprehension, you could tell from the context that it was a statement about the generality of Mueller's investigation. Instead, you nitpick due to the fact that you know deep down it is true that Mueller's investigation is a criminal investigation disguised as a counter-intelligence investigation. By the way, what he was referring to other investigators were crimes that he uncovered that he didn't want to deal with because the people involved were small fish to him, and wouldn't bring anyone whom he hadn't already targeted and gotten a guilty plea for unrelated crimes to light.
Did I say he was acting on feelings? I said he was bringing charges against those that he feels were involved (ie. when he finds even the tiniest evidence that someone might have some knowledge of a criminal activity). You are missing the point of the entire post, because you don't want to admit that Mueller is acting well beyond the supposed scope of his investigation, which was to investigate Russian meddling.
There is a huge difference between the two. What Hillary did had no criminality. The russia investigation has resulted in several indictments, convictions and guilty pleas.
Hillary Clinton was in direct violation of 18 US code 793 and 18 US code 798 in addition to US code 1924 and 18 US code 2071(B).
Anybody who thinks her investigation was legitimate is being dishonest.
Trump on the other hand is being investigated without an initial crime and the intent of Mueller is obvious - to remove a fairly elected President.
The difference is in the word "INTENT."
Do your own research.
YOU DO SOME! 18 US code 798 makes no mention of intent as a matter of fact it says that negligence is a violation, thus the Obama agents had to rewrite what Comey would say, because he originally used the word negligence. Then he exonerated her, which he had no right to do by making up wording like INTENT which is not in the law.
And you are going to tell us that the FBI was doing it's duty?
It's in the first paragraph!
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person , or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information —
There was no proven intent … no proof of intent to knowingly and willfully benefit any foreign government!
… or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States
It's what the law specifically states … not what you want it to mean.
What Clinton did was stupid, sloppy and careless; but there was no intent to knowingly and willfully benefit any foreign government!
I wrote, negotiated and enforced contract language for more than 30 years … arbitrators and judges rule on WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF A PROVISO STATES … NOT WHAT A PLAINTIFF thinks it means …
It is in 18 US code 793
Paragraph (f):
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The paragraph I cited is a PROVISO … a condition attached to an agreement: there must be an intent to "willfully benefit any foreign government"!
Proviso Law and Legal Definition. Proviso refers to a condition, stipulation, or limitation inserted in a document upon whose compliance the document's validity or application may depend. In short, it is a clause in a statute, contract, or the like, by which a condition is introduced.
It applies throughout the document.
You are misreading the law my friend.
A law when written specifies what is required to prove it, when the statute includes the word "Intent" then it MUST be proven as an element of the crime.....
When a statute does not include the word "Intent", it is NOT an element of the crime needing to be proven.....
Which means in every jurisdiction that can have jurisdiction, specific intent is not needed to commit the crime, especially a crime of negligence, which is the legal name for carelessness. Gross Negligence is where either there is ample evidence of intent without intent being required to be proven or the circumstances of the crime can be determined to be grossly careless when it is specifically known to be carelessness...
Either way you go she was deliberately and specifically careless with government secrets unless your making the argument that she was absolutely clueless as to what is a government secret and what isn't as an excuse for her behavior...
No, you do some for once...intent in legaleze is called "mens rea" the act of a guilty mind.
Without mens rea conviction is almost impossible which it what Comey said, but the right were too busy shouting "lock her up" instead of learning something.
Here, learn something
Either way you go she was deliberately and specifically careless with government secrets unless your making the argument that she was absolutely clueless as to what is a government secret and what isn't as an excuse for her behavior...
No argument about "careless" … however, deliberation in this case did not constitute knowing and willful transmission of information with the intent/objective to benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States …
I'll stand by my position.
You are misreading the law my friend.
Disagree; I am reading it precisely as written. As for mens rea the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime , as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused …
Under this law, "wrongdoing" applies to the intent/objective to benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States. There is no proof that this was Clinton's intention.
Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae . A mens rea refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994) . Establishing thev mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind .
Mens Rea the intention or fore-knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused. Which means the intention to commit a crime before any criminal act takes place.... not applicable to carelessness as a rule. You claiming that they have to prove that she intended for state secrets to be compromised. which is not the case here as culpable intent is not required...
Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss.
Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person". By extension, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross". Gross negligence may thus be described as reflecting "the want of even slight or scant care", falling below the level of care that even a careless person would be expected to follow. While some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most differentiate it from simple negligence in its degree.
Under United States law, proof of gross negligence involves proving all of the elements of an ordinary negligence action, (which doesn't require intent) plus the additional element that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of, or with a lack of substantial concern for, the rights of others. For some causes of action that might trigger defenses such as governmental immunity, it may be necessary to prove gross negligence in order to overcome the defense.
gross negligence (law.com)
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.
These are five legal elements of a gross negligence case.
The statute being about government secrets does not require provanance of damages, just the risk that damage could happen is proof enough hence one has to prove "Assumption of Risk"
Nowhere in there is any mens rea ie. culpable intent required.... Just the facts that the negligence happened, that there was a duty to not be negligent, security protocols were known by the defendant, and that they were violated...
All of that is not only proven beyond any shadow of doubt, but the proof is public and undeniable.
If you or I had done any of that with state secrets, we would be in jail.... Why shouldn't she?
No, I'm talking about the server overall.
For the rest, there's too many holes of precedent from previous administrations to peg her for the documents. Many were re-classified after they got them and again, too many incidents of materials being handled over private servers to convict her solely.
In example, Bush jr. and using the RNC server to conduct state business.
I don't think any of them put their illegal server on a UPS truck for shipment two thirds of the way across the country with above top secret information on it's hard drives....
Now I'm just being controversial....are you sure the hard drives went with it or shipped seperately?
My point stands sans the shipping, there are too many precedents from previous admins to single her out.
I do need to correct something, it wasn't a server that was shipped, it was a laptop with 5 years of Clinton SOS details on it that was shipped by Fed Ex to their Denver Colorado server company to upload to their new professional server..... what happened to the Laptop afterwards was never documented....
And, hillary's original dell server was taken by an inscure transport truck to the server company's location in NY for copying into the new e-mail system. Once done, they were left sitting in that companies insecure servers racks all they way until the FBI claimed them....
And that was for not only her email address but most of her staffs also.
Reading the assembled accounts of the E-mail server odyssey makes one think could we really have people in government THAT stupid? (of course my experience with government communications systems being one of absolute frustration I can understand their frustration) But No one is that stupid....
Interesting read ....
Negligence and Gross Negligence are not criminal terms, they are civil terms.
You can't be arrested for either. You can be cited as being negligent in allowing or a crime happening like bodily injury but neither are stand alone crimes.
The willful blindness doctrine, while providing courts with a useful tool for bringing culpable individuals to justice, also carries with it the dangerous potential to convict those whose mental state does not reach the requisite level of culpability.
The criteria for guilt should be specified carefully, particularly when there is variance from a literal statutory reading. As criminal punishment becomes increasingly harsh, it is ever more important for courts to carefully consider whether the defendant’s state of mind was that which the statute is meant to punish.
You aren't kidding there...I had to pull away thinking " shit! I was supposed to reply"
Here's another "version for dummies" but it does go through the step by step of how the transfer and lost laptop came about.
I'm about to crash, didn't want you to think I walked away from this...have a great evening....
Good night Studs,
Peace and all that...
100% agreement my friend I"m a strong believer in only the guilty should suffer...
BULLSHIT!
18 US code 793
and 18 US code 798
US code 1924
18 US code 2071(B).
PROVE with reliable sources that Clinton did ANY of that...
The one good thing about crashing out of anything on this highway? no need for insurance......
Sleep well my friend, I'll look forward to continuing tomorrow...
The transmission of government information is what is being discussed
Part (a) above specifically covers what would be spying for a foreign power and is considered Treason hence Intent specifically applies here. But that isn't what is being charged is it. No one is claiming that Hillary committed Treason.....
Part (b) Is the what is covered as documentation for the purposes of National Defense....
Part (c) covers who this law applies to receivers in the transference, communication or relaying of the aforementioned said documents. Basically anyone who gets possession of them. Then goes on to say OR..... which means (c) may not apply to the next set....
Part (d) Whoever has them in the first place or is responsible for keeping them...... Then goes on to say OR..... which means (d) may not apply to the next set....
Part (e) Whoever possess or has access to said documents without the proper credentials for having such transfers to someone who also does not have proper credentials or refuses to turn said documents over to an authorized receiver...... Then goes on to say OR..... which means (e) may not apply to the next set....
Part (f) Is for those who do have credentialed access to said documents.... (like the Secretary of State)
(1) Permits them to be transmitted anywhere carelessly or to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ..... Then goes on to say OR..... which means (1) may not apply to the next set....
(2) Not doing it themselves but has knowledge of it being done and not reporting it to the proper authorities......
Is guilty and is subject to the penalties lined out below.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the entire law, Obviously you are not trained in reading statuary law as you can see, it is laid out in sections, the first section specifies what act is covered, second the particular crime, and third who it applies to.....
Sections:
A = Anyone having or transmitting documents in their possession with intent to commit treason.
B = The information possessed that would constitute treason is transmitted.
C = Anyone receiving documents into their possession with the intent of committing treason.
D = Anyone with lawful possession who intentionally transmits it to anyone else who is not authorized to have them or fails to turn it over to the government on demand
E = Anyone who has them without permission who with intent transmits it to anyone else who is not authorized to have them or fails to turn it over to the government on demand
and last but not least....
F = Anyone who has authority to possess but through their carelessness allows them to be transmitted to someone who doesn't have authorization or knows of it happening....
Hillary being Secretary of State was authorized to have possess of national secrets concerning the defense of the nation and state secrets about it's policies.... Carelessness cause said documents to be removed from Government custody and placed in the hands of those who didn't have authorization to have them. Notice that section (f) does not have a specific intent statement. Out of the four classes of persons this law would effect, she, as a trusted government employee with access, allows such to be not only transferred out of possession into unauthorized hands, allowed such records to be destroyed which is also part and parcel of this crime....
By a plain reading of the statute and what is already known of the screwed up handling of her private server, she is guilty as sin..... and no again by a plain reading of the law, the section she clearly falls under, SHE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE!
So dulay, your exclamation of bullshit is just that BULLSHIT!
Are we clear?
Thank both of you.
You don't know how recklessly I sleep...lol
Actually, my comment was in reply to the seeder who claimed that Clinton violated 293 WITHOUT specifying a subsection.
Secondly, the law is U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 793. The TITLE of that law is ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP. If you are claiming that Clinton violated 793, you are claiming that she committed ESPIONAGE.
Did you bring up Treason to deflect?
Obviously you are not trained in reading statuary law as you intentionally IGNORE the definitions of terms used therein.
The predicate for any and ALL of 793 is that the materials be 'relating to the national defense', which, as used in the ESPIONAGE Act is defined as 'refers to the military or naval establishments and to related activities of national preparedness for war.' That's per the Congressional record and the SCOTUS.
So AGAIN, PROVE that Clinton intentionally committed ESPIONAGE.
Don't have to. What does become completely clear is you have absolutely no understanding or training in the law....
And as such, anything you may comment has to be considered in that frame of reference.
No one is arguing Clinton committed Treason, and in fact by consideration of the actual law that applies no case of treason could be made. Hence no one is claiming such.
But the section of law that does apply (section (f)) she is CLEARLY guilty of, by evidence already in the public domain....
Like i said, a clear unambiguous reading of the relevant statute.
For one thing you have wrong?
The title means nothing as to what can be charged under a statute, the provisions of the statute is what is important. One of the first things taught in appraising a statute.
Case Closed.
In what state did YOU pass the bar NWM? When did you work in the legal trade? Was it before or after you marched with MLK?
You can't refute my comment nor can you prove your own.
Your gums are flapping but you've got NOTHING. You keep deflecting to Treason when the statute you cited is entitled the ESPIONAGE Act. You keep claiming that Clinton is 'CLEARLY guilty' yet can't PROVE that claim. There is NO evidence in the public domain that could be cited to prosecute Clinton under 793 [f].
As I said, for your fantasy to come true, you would have to IGNORE the legal definition of 'national defense'. I choose not to ignore that predicate since the Congress and the SCOTUS both felt it was pretty fucking relevant.
I already refuted it even if you do not accept the refutation.... (no one can help nor excuse a closed mind)
My gums are flappin? and I've got nothing? (how many hundreds of time I've heard that before, usually from people that can't or won't back their claims up) I posted the ACTUAL STATUTE! with specific relevant commentary, What have you got? nothing but a lot of verbiage claiming you are right and I"m wrong...
Hows that for backing up what I say? since you've commented that I never do such. but it does raise an interesting situation, why don't YOU for this ONE time post something, ANYTHING, that refutes the clear and unambiguous reading of the ACTUAL LAW that I posted....
Seems to me your avoiding that....
No fantasy, just specific well researched FACT.... the Legal definition of NATIONAL DEFENSE has nothing to do with it and is a claim I challenge you in any way to PROVE!
Balls back in your court and any claim of bullshit has been refuted, it is incumbent on you to prove your claim that the law I cited isn't the relevant law and you haven't even begun to get there with another unfounded claim....
Pony up to the bar girl, and demonstrate your brain pan, or not, it is up to you.
But I do see the usual response beginning to come out....
And I'll leave it at that. Cause I already know your opinion of me...
No problem, I take it that goes for her too? Correct?
i would always leave my closed mind open,
i always enjoy the breeze,
while others,
think it really blows.
My personal favorite, is the stationary breeze, that blows off my stationary desk,
whenever i move my
stationary desk.
One of my favorite
activities, whenever inactivating the mobility of the extremely active inactivity of, my stationary desk
somewhere.
Actually man, Nowhere
are our closed minds, or stationary desks going,
unless desks are open to no drawers,
where shelter is heard aloud, whence forth allowed to drop drawers, which sometimes lifts/
skirts the acronyms, i'm never able to spell, unless put under
the desk while operating
the the very active
stationary controls,
i remotely control,
via
the remote possibility,
i can find my remote control, as i have no control
over it, or my desk.
As i usually lose it at the corner bar i frequent, that i just opened on a circle.
Sometimes it feels like peep holes should be square
width the heights of the many times and
the vast areas they divide,
via multiplication of course,
as that is how many, such as possibly our against current leader,
Spins, while attempting to swim and spawn, upstream like a Fish/desk
with no draws, to bare the weight, but wait, along comes a bear
and he begins to claw at something fishy, that he was taught by his ma and paw,
about the bull,
no...?
.
Me neither ,
but whats a circle among friends, cause so many around here could
never pass a bar,
but,
does this mean they are
too obtuse, or just
Drink too much... ?
.
Sometimes
we all dream about drowning in thought,
though not all of these wet dreams,
soak in.
Question #1 - Never
Question #2 - Never but I have represented myself in court all the way up to division 2 Court of appeals for the State of Washington
Question #3 Long long after
And since your relatively new here and really don't know anyone yet, I have been questioned on the extent of my legal knowledge right here on the board by several of the members who are attorney's, One of them in the open publicly.
No I'm not an attorney and have never claimed to be, I've had offers from attorney's willing to sponsor me to take the state Bar Exam one of them being a states attorney. I've refused each and every opportunity. It doesn't require a law degree to be a lawyer in the State of Washington. I do NOT want to be a lawyer. When asked why, My response was that becoming a lawyer would entail that I set aside my personal beliefs and integrity and accept my clients positions as needed to defend them. That I cannot do..... That I will not do..... I would not make a good attorney not because of my knowledge or lack of knowledge, it's because of my inability to respect my potential clients and their illegalities and then have to defend them.....
No I'm not a lawyer. And if that means my opinions can be more easily ignored so be it. I have always been open to any challenge of my reading of laws and statutes. It's the way knowledge grows...
Aren't too many here that are willing to try... (and one of my legal wins? proving that a lawyer committed perjury, one of the most difficult charges to prove)
We have a poet amongst us my friends.....
Amen well said...
Why would that be true NWM. None that I'm aware of require you to take a client if you feel they are lying. There a numerous people that need the services of a lawyer and they certainly all can't be bad guys/women...
In addition there are a wide range of fields within the law profession that would certainly fit you moral compass.
Instead of getting defensive, just add me to your list...
Your comments refute your openness to 'any challenge'. I challenged you on the FACT that the statute that you hang your hat on hinges on the legal definition of national defense and you want to pretend that the definition of the term is irrelevant. Your vast knowledge of law should preclude you from making such a ridiculous argument.
So your claiming to be an attorney? Really? and stating crap like this below? (there is a very easy quick way to prove you are an attorney)
THEN PROVE IT!
that statute doesn't hinge on anything about national defense it's about any information that is controlled by the government and e-mails of the SoS are documents controlled by the government.....
NOW PROVE ME WRONG!
What? you afraid to?
Add me to your list of challengers, which I have been doing cogently since my first day here...
Yes is DOES and I have already stated why.
No NWM. A 'CLEAR READING' of the statute predicates that the 'information' has to be 'related to the national defense'.
Yet you have yet to prove that ANY of them were 'related to the national defense' as defined by the Congress and the SCOTUS. I presume with your vast knowledge of the law you are eminently capable of finding the relevant SCOTUS decisions related to that definition.
Just did.
What would lead you to ask that ridiculous question?
Mere repetition does not make veracity, you have repeated an assertion of which I have asked for proof which you are studioudly avoiding by going back to your original claim....
You haven't proven anything yet.... (your claims are not proof)
So then your not an attorney? well that means your smart enough to recognize a corner you were about to be backed into....
And the fact that you constantly use derogatory expressions to couch your non-existent "challenges" speak strongly against your being in any form a student of laws. Yes a clear reading as I laid the actual statue out lends a clear reading to anyone who cares to read it. you wish to cherry pick one term and then make the whole statute about that one term, much like you tried to use the title as definitive of the statute when it isn't.....
And in debate, your constant reversions to that issue means you have nothing to offer relevant to proving your claims.... It's called redirection/deflection.
I answered your challenge directly out of the law, you keep deflecting....
That's the long and the short of it.....
You can't prove your claim and your ego will not allow you to let it go.
Face it, you can't get beyond the plain stated law, You lost the debate.
Own it...
I presumed that with your vast knowledge of the law you would be capable of reading the statute and with your keen, and I presume open legal mind, recognize that unless the information is 'related to national defense' that statute isn't applicable.
[Removed]
Wow, you must think I take this shit seriously...
[Removed]
Secondly, the term 'national defense' is THE delimiting term in the statute that YOU insist is the end all and be all to nail Clinton. You can pretend all you want that it's irrelevant butt everyone, except you, who has carefully READ that statute knows that to be false.
Actually, you haven't answered my challenge at all. You've merely pretended that a key phrase in the law is irrelevant, and you're wrong.
[Removed]
Your funny....
Keep spinning, I admit your persistent at it....
But persistence is irrelevant when you can't back up your claims, repetition does not make veracity.....
Still one fact of this whole debate, I'm the only one who has backed up his point, YOU haven't....
And at this point I take your responses as a refusal to.
Which means you have nothing except an undefended claim.
who won really isn't the point is it?
Your quite the dancer but you can't escape 18 US code 793 (f) and neither could Comey
I'm not trying to escape 793(f). I stated a FACT about the content. Why obfuscate?
You're right about Comey being unable to escape 793(f). Comey's CLEAR READY of the Espionage Act lead him to realize that it was not applicable to SoS Clinton.
And that is why he's currently under investigation AGAIN, as to why he chose to change his conclusions of law into a reason for the AG's office to not pursue charges when originally his initial conclusions made it a requirement under the statute to charge......
I"m sure at this point they would like this all to go away, but the problem is the FACTS that have already been established and released to the public show a clear and absolute violation of 793 (f) more than sufficient to gain a conviction.
The change came after a meeting with the AG, which came after a meeting of the AG with former President Clinton...... ALL PROVEN FACTS...
I would suggest you read up on a legal/political principle... "The Appearance of Impropriety" the principle has always been a call for any honest and ethical legal establishment to investigate the dark corners of politics. and this whole Comey , Lynch, Clinton, Clinton affair has a lot of people questioning what was going on.
UPDATE:
Oh and now they are claiming that Agent Strozak changed Comey's documents.... (without Comey's knowledge) Wow that an awful ballsey FBI agent to change the directors documents like that to save his favorite politicians ass..... But then Strozak was one of the agents fired from the Mueller investigation cause political bias became public.
CNN: FBI Agent Strzok Changed Comey's Clinton Language From "Grossly Negligent" To "Extremely Careless"
Since he was fired already, Lost his FBI career, ethics and credibility shot, he becomes the perfect patsy to have fall on his sword.......
I've said it before, I'll say it again, the meat of this investigation is over the efforts to save Hillary Clinton from prison..... Mueller is all up in that effort to save her, that is becoming clear, and Mueller going all shotgun after T-rump is a huge deflection from the real issue. The House going all shotgun against T-rump is not the real issue either and the liberal media has been trying to shield this for way to long......
My experience tells me that a house of cards is about to fall the biggest house of cards in American political history....
So Comey fully understood that his language would get Clinton indicted, so did the AG, and Comey has always professed that he didn't do it. (change it) So they are now claiming a destroyed political tool did it....
Next obvious question? WHY? they will claim that is answered by the reason for his dismissal from the Mueller investigation team.
Next obvious question? Who ordered him to do it. Agents do NOT as a rule change the directors documents without clearing it with the director first.
What this proves?
One of them is lying, beyond any shadow of doubt, one of them is lying...
Someone once said that on one can help or excuse a closed mind.
You keep repeating that.
False.
Again, false.
You seemed to think so when you prematurely claimed victory.
[deleted]
Yet you're STILL incapable of citing even one example...
WTF does THAT have to do with 793(f)? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.
That comment goes even further off the rails and the rest of your comment follows...
There are several people on the board that used to do exactly what your doing here.
AS far as the law I cited goes, if I was wrong in my analysis, those several legally trained minds who questioned me before? they would have been all over me by now......
and I'm not in the habit of going through all the effort to prove or disprove YOUR claims. that is your job to prove YOUR claims.....
And you want to ridicule me for not disproving YOUR claims? You have to establish that YOUR claim has a basis first.
Which you haven't....
Your major problem here is your dealing with someone who knows how to debate, who is not going to fall for the little ploys of the inexperienced.
So your ridicule is wasted or even worse goes to show your inexperience. (or maybe incompetence)
Which from a real debator's position is something I will allow you to partake of as much as you want. If you wish to keep embarrassing yourself, exposing your inexperience as a debate participant, have at it....
Your only line of action? Prove your initial assertion and stop trying to get me to do it for you. cause I won't, besides I've already researched it and know the answer already.... and so do you....
So in essence this is a game, a losers game and the more you persist, the more we all can laugh....
You have nothing to defend your position with, if you did you would come forth with it as a "I Gotcha" and since there has been more than sufficient time to do such, I think that reality is the final reality and the debate is over. No one is going to make your argument for you, and if they have done the research they realize that they cannot do it.
Have a nice day....
NWM and Dulay (I put it in that order because it looks like I am directing this to Dulay), You were warned earlier by BF not to make comments personal but I see that they are still personal. This is an official cease and desist. You are not to engage each other anymore in this thread, or any other thread in this article. If you ignore this, I will impose a block on the both of you.
Gotcha, and Thank you...
Sounds serious ...
was it
.
my alleged "poem"
as i am sorry
N
I won't let it happen again,
at least
till the
next time
It wasn't that at all my friend.....
Someone HAD to call timeout.....
The House Mom was very appropriate and percipient. (and for you Perrie, I use the Term "House Mom" with all fealty and affection)
[Deleted] in [accordance with Perrie's comment #9.2.50]
[Removed]
Author Comments about the Seeded topic.
Trump has committed multiple felonies and you're just fine with that? Seriously...this is laughable. The original crime was hacking and stealing emails from Hillaries campaign and the DNC.
Interesting that you never remember that.
Of which T-rump had absolutely NOTHING to do with..... If you want to claim he does, then I will ask you to prove it....
Let's not forget that Comey exonerated Hillary before the FBI questioned her and her pals.
Don't know if I could call this proof but...
When Corsi called Stone to update him on the Wikileaks dump Stone called Trump..."Our friend in the embassy...."
Hmmm. Maybe YOU forgot?
Although I cannot access the WaPo article you linked, I easily understood that the day you referenced in your block quote is Saturday, July 2, 2016 - the day that the FBI questioned Hillary Clinton.
Now, perhaps you'd like to read the following, which is what my comment 9.2.59 addressed:
So far, the Obama Administration, Hillary, and Comey have dodged bullets, but even more important is that because Hillary lost, US citizens have learned what we would never have known had she won.
I'm not going to dicker with you about such old, proven facts. Period. Full stop.
Can you prove that he was not involved in the Russia collusion? No, I didn't think so.
That investigation isn't over yet.
That isn't true.
None of that occurred. Nice try though.
Classified info didn't end up on Anthony Weiner's laptop? Do you know what foreign nations were able to obtain off of Clinton's unsecure server?
It was a lot more than a try and any objective observer would agree.....They gave her a pass and the same people went after Trump wiyh all the power of the federal government.
I haven't forgot, nor did I forget they didn't even convene a Grand Jury, nor did I forget that the man who destroyed Hillary's e-mails with BleachBit (after they were subpoenaed) received IMMUNITY!
If the investigators are guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, then Trump has the same rights as Ellsberg and Ayers.
According to the FBI, the servers were never breached.
Actually the FBI said they had no reason to believe that they were breached.
If...
As far as Ayers et al, that was completely different circumstances.
Classified documents among newly released Huma emails found on Weiner’s laptop
Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material — but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to “Anthony Campaign,” an apparent address belonging to Weiner.
The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning.
“I deeply regret the likely upcoming WikiLeaks disclosure,” read one of the talking points.
“This appears to be the result of an illegal act in which a fully cleared intelligence officer stole information and gave it to a website. The person responsible will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” the message continued.
“This is the kind of information we fear may be released: details of private conversations with your government on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.”
State was expected to dump roughly 2,800 emails as a result of a court case won by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Link?
And that is different from the tactics used by Mueller and Obama?
That is just a Wiki link The first word COINTELPRO is the link.
Mueller was appointed and set up to investigate. He was not part of ongoing counter intelligence against segments of society.
So you have no proof of that statement.
But there was a counter intelligence investigation ongoing before Mueller was appointed. Why was that? Could it be that a counter intelligence investigation really dosent need a crime and that it is open ended and it was a way for Obama to dig into the Trump campaign?
How about how the Mueller appointment? Comey said he leaked info after his firing to get a special counsel investigation. Just like clock work his buddy Rosenstein appoints his other buddy Mueller. It was quick, slick and cleanly done. It was done so well that one has to question whether it was a contingency plan in case Comey got fired.
Since then there has been no evidence of "conspiracy". The Mueller team has compiled a bucket of perjury/process crimes, while ignoring lots of wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign (real conspiracy), the perjury of Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and James Comey and the unmasking of Michael Flynn by Obama officials.
That tells me that some Court will eventually drop any charges should they be filed against the President.
Of what statement?
I stick by mt statement that it is nothing like the Mueller investigation.
Look up Alexander Downer
Please see the links in comment 9.2.62 .
Ender:
Please note what the Judge does about the late arriving 302 document in the Flynn case tomorrow!
Is the deadline for that tomorrow? I guess we will see.
To be honest, do I think the FBI is capable of doing subversive illegal things? Yes, as I myself have shown.
Do I think it is some big conspiracy to take down trump? No, I think he is more than capable of taking himself down.
Also from some the story keeps seeming to change. From the cause of all this being the dossier to Downer.
Either way, Flynn admitted he lied, trump admitted firing him for having lied. I believe Pence admitted he was lied to. He is a career civil servant, he knows the law. Also being career military, he knows military protocol and never lie to superiors.
They are looking high and low for any break in the chain or breach of protocol.
Another moment of honesty, I think most of the people in DC are guilty of several crimes. Don't you ever get tired of it? I do. Having Mueller is bringing light to crimes that would have remained hidden. I don't care if he ends up taking down some Democrats. Crooked is crooked. We deserve better.
The HEAVILY REDACTED 302.
It is the second deadline. The original deadline was Friday, but Mueller unlike the rest of us gets to miss deadlines that would normally get one held in contempt. Mueller now has sent it over.
Did it Vic? Link?
Tell us all about what foreign nations were able to obtain off of Clinton's 'unsecured' server Vic.
Yup, and you can bet that it is totally inconsistent with the one that appeared in August. I will bet that the inconsistent items include providing Flynn notice about his rights, what the interview was really about, his legal jeopardy and most important of all the conclusion, which I bet said that Flynn was being honest. That is what was probably redacted.
[ deleted ] Here from CNN, no less:
"Washington (CNN)The State Department posted a number of emails belonging to former top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin on Friday after the messages were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop by the FBI. Several of the released documents were found to contain information classified "confidential," and were heavily redacted.
Tell us all about what foreign nations were able to obtain off of Clinton's 'unsecured' server Vic.
That was a question....Do you know the answer?
Btw with all the links I'm providing you I'm starting to feel like a news service
The Judge approved the redactions.
Link?
The Jan, 24, 2017 302 has already been released. Haven't you READ it yet?
It was only released hours ago. I'm going through it now.
Right in the first paragraph I see something - it says Flynn was advised of the nature of the interview.
I'll call that lie # 1
Can you provided a link to the August version you said had been released?
I also notice that they redacted the name of the junior FBI agent who may have kept his own notes. We should hear from him.
Can't you find it?
The August version is an interview of Strzok about what was said in January by Flynn. Strzok was fired by Mueller days later. The 302's are supposed to be filed within 5 days of the interview
How do you know that the 302 wasn't written by the Junior agent?
Is it your intent to question every word I say or do you simply not get news. Here:
" A few days ago, on Dec. 13, we pointed out that a footnote contained within a legal filing by the team of former national security adviser Michael Flynn related not to the Jan. 24, 2017, interview of Flynn, but instead referenced an FBI interview of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his partner—likely Joseph Pientka.
The referenced FD-302—a type of FBI form that is a written summation of an interview—was dated Aug. 22, 2017, almost seven months after Flynn’s Jan. 24, 2017, interview. It clearly reads as quotes by the FBI agents describing events before, during, and after the Flynn interview to an unknown FBI official.
The following day, a filing from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed our position. Attached to the Mueller filing were several attachments, including an FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017, containing information from an interview of Strzok that occurred on July 19, 2017."
Based on what? Flynn's lawyers didn't argue that in their sentencing memo.
It's irrelevant! Flynn was not in custody so there was no obligation to advise him that it was a felony to lie to the FBI.
Otherwise … FLYNN WAS FIRED AS NSA FOR LYING TO PENCE!
It's my intent to get you to back up your comments. You said:
Then you post a link and quote an article that clearly states that the 302 from August is about a July 2017 Flynn interview.
Why would you think that the 302 from the January would be consistent with the one from August, especially since you haven't even READ the August 302 to compare them?
Mac, the irony is that Flynn being advised of the nature of the interview is from McCabe's statement. So we're supposed to believe the part of McCabe's statement quoted in the seed, but NOT the part quoted in the 302.
It drips with hypocrisy.
BTW, what does your link have to do with whether the Junior agent wrote the 302?
Then your 9.2.88 comment makes even less sense.
Based upon all the lie's and leaks that came out of Comey's FBI
Yes there was. There was an obligation to notify the WH counsel and those FBI agents had no right to roam around the West Wing without the administration knowing. Comey even admits he took advantage of the confusion of the new administration's first days:
" Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”
Then you have ignoring what you don't like. In January the FBI said that Flynn had been truthful. In August under Mueller they pressured him (VIA HIS SON) to a guilty plea for perjury. THAT'S WHY.
I know you don't like hearing it but the FBI and Mueller are simply trying to nail Trump on anything. They would have loved to have handed something to the incoming House dems, but obviously, they still don't have much. Today we will find out what the Judge in the Flynn case thinks of this 302 deal. Remember, the Judge had a deadline of FRIDAY for these documents. Mueller didn't turn em over until last night. No problem with any of that, right?
But you make total sense - You don't care about the rule of law or civil liberties, not for Donald Trump, Talk about [Removed]
It would really help if you decided WHO is responsible for Flynn's lies. You vacillate between Mueller and Comey with little to no reference to reality.
They do? Link?
You're kidding right? You know that Flynn was a part of the 'Administration' and KNEW that the FBI was on the way right?
Flynn cleared them through Vic. Your own post states that it was 'arranged directly with Flynn'. Sheesh!
It's hilarious that you're actually citing Trump's lack of leadership as another excuse for Flynn's LIES.
Seriously, Trump became the presumptive nominee in MAY of 2016 and you're admitting that after 8 MONTHS he couldn't even figure out how to secure the WH.
WOW!
You keep saying that but haven't posted any evidence to support it.
Again, if your scenario is true, Flynn lied in his plea agreement, which isn't out of the question since Flynn is a LIAR.
Yet the fact that Flynn's attorneys and Federal prosecutors signed off on the plea changes all of that. That fact leads me to believe that the 'daddy was protecting sonny' scenario is utter bullshit.
I just can't understand why y'all twist yourselves into knots coming up with ridiculous defenses for someone who pled guilty to LYING. Every document that has become public supports the charge against Flynn. In FACT, Flynn admits to being guilty of MUCH MORE than just lying to the FBI.
Flynn got a sweet heart deal and y'all STILL whine.
Thanks.
Again, deflection.
Your seed is about Flynn, NOT Trump.
Yet you keep going off topic.
BUTT Hillary! BUTT Trump. BUTT Comey. BUTT Mueller.
Everything BUTT that Flynn pled to LYING.
Instead of giving Flynn props for manning up and taking responsibility for his crime, y'all insist that he is a victim of a legal system that uses the same tactics against 'lesser' citizens every day.
Right in the first paragraph I see something - it says Flynn was advised of the nature of the interview.
I'll call that lie # 1
As for … "Damn, I like this Judge!"
Flynn was not "IN CUSTODY" … again, consequently there was no protocol requiring he be advised that "it is a felony to lie to the FBI"
As for … "Damn, I like this Judge!" (Texan1211)
FURTHER: This morning, Judge Sullivan said to Flynn (among other things) …
"YOU SOLD YOUR COUNTRY OUT!"
How do you like him now?
Mueller isn't 'ignoring' anything. Mueller has a documented mandate.
If there is evidence of all of the 'wrongdoing' you allege, it's TRUMP'S DOJ that is 'ignoring' it. NOTHING is stopped Sessions from investigating and prosecuting any and all wrongdoing. NOTHING is stopping Whitaker from doing it either.
But that doesn't work well with the conspiracy theories, so y'all blame Mueller. Ironically, when he indicted Manaford y'all screamed that it wasn't part of his mandate.
It drips with hypocrisy.
If that happens, we are no longer a nation of laws.
From the seeded article …
Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February 2017 for misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials about his contacts with Russian officials.
Total bullshit! Pence was the head of the Trump transition team … PENCE HAS LIED MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS ISSUE.
That's impeachable!
I'm sure he was in the know.
So the dems impeach both and the Senate rightfully refuses to convict. Then what?
So you say....but if the evidence is laid out in black and white with videos and recordings (which they have now) the Republicans will have to make some hard choices. Impeach him and come out looking fair to the public, or protect him and paint the Republican party as complicit in illegal activities.
Since the Republicans want to save their ass.....
"Rightfully?"
Then what? Here's my prediction.
• House Democrats (in January or later) will file articles of impeachment against Trump
• The House will move to dismiss Trump from the Presidency
• The Senate will then be faced with having to vote 2/3 to dismiss which means a number of Republicans will have to vote for dismissal
• RATHER THAN REPUBLICANS VOTING "YAY" OR "NAY" AND RISKING THE POLITICAL FALLOUT EITHER WAY …
… they will urge Trump to resign a la Nixon/Watergate … possibly mentioning that his children could go to prison, and, offering, as part of a resignation agreement, "no indictments," BUT stipulating that there will be no pardons i.e. from Pence.
FYI: 40 members of the Nixon Administration served prison time in conjunction with Watergate, and, Gerald Ford lost his POTUS ELECTION FOR PARDONING NIXON!
Vic … still time to get in on my wager ($25 for the American Cancer Society) that Trump will be Impeached/Dismissed, Indicted, or, Resign.
Are you in?
FYI; Flynn was not in custody so there was no obligation that he be advised not to lie .., as if he needed to be so advised, Further, Flynn had been lying to the public and media for weeks prior to the meeting in question.
Further yet, the White House used the bullshit excuse for firing Flynn, that he lied to Pence regarding his Russia dealing ... Pence was head of the Trump transition team so he knew ... but they tried to have it both ways.
Even though Flynn spilled his guts about everything he had on Scumbag, he's still trying to parlay a pardon from him. He's got chutzpah, that's clear. Looks like Scumbag's falling for it, too. Let's just review what Mueller's response to this reach-around Flynn's trying to pull:
So, I guess message of all the blind support for Flynn is that lying must be just fine with those unconditional supporters when it's one of their scumbags do it.....but we already knew that from the blind support they've been giving the Master Liar of them all: Their Beloved Scumbag-in-chief.
Flynn and Trump supporters are whining because the FBI didn't warn him beforehand that lying to them was a felony.
That sounds like a poor excuse.
Flynn is seeking a pardon and criticizing Mueller is a way for him to suck up to Trump.
Y'all still like Judge Sullivan? Ironically, the Judge brought up his disagreement with the Petraeus sentence, he even asked why Flynn wasn't charged with Treason.
Didn't go well today for the Flynn camp...