....I guess we shall soon see.
If this plays out as Issa describes, Mueller’s credibility will be gone.
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-issues-moral-rebuke-of-trump-for-criticizing-cohen-raid-shame-on-republicans
We need to rethink this license in the context of its use against political opponents. Flynn was not "entrapped" but he was "trapped." The DOJ was seriously politicized during the Obama administration and needs to get back to being politically neutral.
You can say they are just enforcing the law...but that excuse rings hollow.
Consider if a prosecutor only enforces a law against A-type Violators, and never against B-type violators.
What if the A-type Violators are black, and the B-type violators are white? The Dems would not be saying, "They are just enforcing the law." They would be saying this is an abuse of power.
But, since the A-type Violators (allegedly) are "Trumpos," and the B-type violators are mainstream statist Dems, then they are fine with this abuse of power...they would call it "prosecutorial discretion."
I think abuse of power is an abuse of power regardless.
I think the issue is that, ordinarily, a sitting Cabinet member who is requested to speak to the FBI in connection with a pending investigation would have a lawyer present to represent the executive branch of the government. White House counsel is not personal counsel for the cabinet official (or president), but instead represents the office of the president/executive branch. President Trump, for example, does not have any executive privilege that he can personally assert; instead, because he is president, the White House can, and does, assert that privilege. Representative Issa either doesn't understand the distinction (unlikely), or he is stirring the pot (likely).
General Flynn has pleaded guilty, and his attorneys have characterized his actions as an uncharacteristic lapse of judgment. The government has indicated that he has satisfied his obligations under his plea deal and advised that it doesn't are if he gets prison time, or not. We'll see what happens, but I would be surprised if the plea is tossed by the Court (particularly because Flynn himself isn't really advocating for that).
(no message)
And older Flynn reportedly cried like a bitch when they presented him with the opportunity to save his son.
(no message)
My point is that the FBI did not tell Gen. Flynn that he couldn't have a personal lawyer, but instead they discouraged him from involving the White House counsel's office (and I don't think the threat of charging his son was related to that). It was a breach of protocol because it left the Office of the White House unrepresented, but the interests of the office of the White House are not the same as the interests of Gen. Flynn personally. I think it had -0- to do with the crime charged and the plea deal.
Did I represent the business executives in their personal capacity? No.
Did my presence in the interview aid them immensely in their personal capacity? It sure as hell did. And, it also aided the FBI in understanding the truth.
People just aren't careful with how they phrase things, and they are not careful in paying attention to exactly what others ask. Lawyers assist with that.
Interview #1:
Agent: "Can you confirm that X is true?"
Jim (an interviewee without attorney present, thinking to himself that his company database says X is true, answers confidently): "Yes."
Interview #2:
Agent: "Can you confirm that X is true?"
Jim: "Yes."
Attorney (knowing that answer is too simple, and may lead the FBI to ignore factors they should consider): "Jim just stated that X is true. Jim, is it accurate to say that you have concluded as a business matter, that X is true for the purposes of our business proposal? You operate our business as if X is true?"
Jim: "Yes.
Attorney: "And your conclusion was based on an advisory report prepared by junior managers, correct?"
Jim: "Yes."
Attorney: "And you trust those junior manages."
Jim: "Yeeesss..."
Attorney: "And that advisory report was a summary of data taken from our corporate research database?"
Jim: "Yes."
Attorney: "And that database was created by data entry specialists, with some training in this area, but definitely not experts?"
Jim: "Yes."
Attorney: "And although they could have made mistakes in entering that data, you treat that data as if it is true, because you can't be hamstrung by uncertainty. You rely on their competence, even if you don't verify their work yourself?"
Jim: "Correct."
Attorney: "And some of the data sources they use are secondary sources; that is, they are compilations of data we purchase, but cannot verify ourselves as 100% correct, even though we treat them as 100% correct for business purposes. Is that a fair summary?"
Jim: "Yes"
Attorney: "Now, can you actually say that X is true? Or, can you only say that you treat X as true for business purposes, and you are confident in that conclusion......but, there are a lot of factors we need to discuss today if we are to actually confirm that X is actually true, in reality?"
Jim: "Yes. I'm just saying what my database says."
In both interviews, Jim did not mean to mislead the FBI. He wanted to tell the truth.
But, if X turns out not to be true, would Jim be charged for lying to the FBI in Interview #1?...maybe, or maybe not. Interview #2?...probably not. Attorney wasn't there to protect him personally, but the attorney ended up protecting (i) him from prosecution, (ii) the company from prosecution, and (iii) the FBI from being mislead.
The answer as to whether he is prosecuted in the first case hinges on whether the FBI thinks (rightly or wrongly) that it can gain something from him to get someone else...the true target of the investigation. Jim may be innocent of the crime they are investigating, but if they can charge him with lying, they may believe that they can get him to do more for them, to get the real target of their investigation. And, if he has to sell his house for legal expenses, or if he sees them trying to do to his son what they are doing to him, he will plead to anything.
He is guilty.
The first time I was interviewed by the FBI (during their visit to my company at the time...we were an international company, with some sensitive products and some products which could be misused), I met with them by myself. No one else was present.
My outside lawyers were besides themselves. They could not believe that.
But, I was innocent, and I was doing my patriotic duty to help the FBI.
I not only believed that, but my belief was correct.
Nonetheless, they told me to never, never, never, never do that again.
Not one of them has since told me, "No biggie. Just don't lie."
Do you think he knew he could have a lawyer in there? Do you think he knew that his lawyers would NEVER recommend that he meet with the FBI without them?
Of course that is what lawyers would advise. And of course Flynn knew that. And of course he knew not to lie to the FBI.
And of course nothing improper was done here....just more smoke to distract the stupids.
Maybe he thought he could lie to the FBI about something that was not illegal. I don't know. But he was mistaken in his assumptions.
If he had been an advisor to HRC, he would have received immunity.
But, since he was an advisor to Trump, he received an indictment.
That's how our system works now, and you are ok with that, which says a lot.
Blow smoke all you want. Flynn is a felon who ought to go to jail.
You support abuse of government power to subjugate your political opponents. There is no way to sugar coat that. That is what you support. You don't believe that everyone who lies to the FBI should go to jail...just your political opponents.
I'm pretty sure Chris is fine with anyone convicted of a felony going to prison.
And others.
He does not lobby for them to go to jail. I guess he leaves that up to the other side...because this prosecution is political at its core, which is unfortunate. Laws should be enforced for justice, not to persecute political opponents.
(no message)
Nearly every Trump campaign associate indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s sprawling Russia probe has been charged with making false statements.
But in a striking contrast, raising questions about a possible double standard, not a single person interviewed during the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation was hit with false statement charges – even though investigators believed some witnesses were untruthful.
...
Of the six Trump campaign associates charged in Mueller’s long investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, five have been charged with violating U.S.C. 1001 — making false statements to FBI agents.
...
But according to the report released in June by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, federal prosecutors and FBI agents told the independent watchdog that witnesses in the probe lied during interviews, but that agents and prosecutors did not pursue false statements charges.
The report revealed one exchange in February 2016 between an agent and another FBI employee not assigned to the investigation. The employee asked the agent how an interview with an unnamed witness went.
“Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax with HRC. Ridic,” the agent wrote.
The employee replied: “Wouldn’t it be funny if he was the only guy charged n[sic] this deal?”
“I know. For 1001 [false statements]. Even if he said the truth and didn’t have a clearance when handling the secure fax—aint noone gonna do s—t,” the agent responded.
...
The report specifically referenced former Clinton technology aide Paul Combetta, who allegedly used the computer program “Bleachbit” to destroy thousands of Clinton’s email records, despite an order from Congress to preserve them.
“With respect to Combetta, we found his actions in deleting Clinton’s emails in violation of a Congressional subpoena and preservation order and then lying about it to the FBI to be particularly serious,” the inspector general wrote, noting that they asked prosecutors why they “chose to grant him immunity instead of charging him with obstruction of justice…or making false statements.”
...
More at the link
Link: False statement charges abound in Mueller probe, in contrast to Hillary Clinton case
He's made mistakes like this often with much simpler issues.
He often makes bold statements when facts literally don't add up.
Link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/06/25/exclusive-darrell-issa-there-is-enough-evidence-to-indict-hillary-clinton/
Again: the notion that Flynn didn’t know that lying to the FBI is a felony is Hank-level stupid.
Read up on the treatment of the Merrill Lynch people who were wrongly jailed and later had their convictions overturned. Other examples during the Enron scandal as well.
As I said, we will see soon. The question I have for you is, would you even keep an open mind if it were found to be true? We both know the answer there. On the other hand, if it does not prove to be true, I will acknowledge it.
You're backing a loser.
You've been upping the bet on your 2-7 offsuit poker hand for two years. Mueller is slowing revealing the flop and your hand isn't getting any stronger but you keep upping the bet.
You think if he shows you a 2 for the river you're going to declare victory? Your pair of 2s is a losing hand. Keep betting though. Let's see how that works out for you.
(no message)
(no message)
He's that sad guy at the end of the table with a short stack. He keeps trying to pull off the big bluff but gets called every time. It's sad really.
Geez, I do have a gambling problem. I'm going to go pour another gin and tonic and think about what I'm going to do about it.
Something inside you must be telling you this is nonsense, Baron.
Not that this will make a difference with you.
When will the fallout from the Nunes memo hit?
(no message)
And, like I said, that was not the reason the ML convictions were thrown out.
his business but the DA said not enough for a conviction. Also under suspicion in CA for auto schemes. He almost lost his seat last time and knew he was going down in a very conservative district so he dropped out. If he's a top republican, you people are in trouble.
(no message)
an abuser of woman, ridiculer of the handicapped, ridiculer our dead war hero’s families, invented medical issues to avoid serving his country, scammed the public/students in a self named university, now known as an adulterer many times over, scammed his business partners, is a long time bigot, a liar of great production and on and on. Then I realized, Americans don’t like morally corrupt individuals. We would never allow someone like that in our legal system or in governance.
(no message)
(no message)
Imagine if prosecutors can no longer use confessions where law enforcement isn’t completely forthright during interviews and interrogations.
And, just wait until Baron leads a national campaign to free child molesters, terrorists, rapists, murderers and bank robbers who confessed without a lawyer present.
Thank you Baron! You rock!
Should we only have 100% confidence in those pleas as being representative of the truth if those people are conservatives?
(no message)