More on the Flynn case

[Conager]

The extraneous details he adds are puzzling. "Lied. Under OATH!" no he didn't. He was not even mirandized, much less sworn in and deposed for the FBI ambush.

There was no recording of the interview so no "transcript" redacted or no. There is a transcript of the call, and it does not match what the charging document claims was discussed in the call. There is no surviving record of any firsthand account of what was discussed in the interview. What were the questions? What were Flynn's responses?

All that remains that is contemporaneous to the interview was the disappointment that Flynn was not being deceptive or willfully inaccurate. They said they were under the impression that Flynn thought his recall was accurate.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm beginning to doubt that any of you right wingers have actually read the redacted transcripts of the Flynn FBI interview. They're available online if you would like to educate yourselves.

I also highly doubt any of you have read Bill Priestaps explanation for the notes he wrote about the Flynn interview.

His explanation destroys one of Bill Barrs justifications for dropping the Flynn case, and Barr was aware of Priestaps view when he asked Judge Sullivan to drop the case.

Why do you dumb fucks think that Sullivan didn't simply acquiesce to Barrs move to end Flynns prosecution???

Trumps stink is all over Barr and his decision to drop the Flynn case.

Why do you think Priestap wrote that note in the first place? Why do you think he would even have a need to jot those particular words down on paper? I started a thread on this guy over a year ago when you or anyone else here didn't had a clue who or what he was.

 

[icanhelp1]

There was plenty of probable cause for every investigation surrounding Trump and the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fact that you cite the Federalist just exposes what a partisan fraud you are.

I actually read that "explosive" article and it's a fucking nothing burger. It's very similar to the "explosive" missing 302 nothing burger article.

It's a common tactic used by defense attorneys to distract from their clients criminal actions.

"Veiled threats" and "those are bad guys"?? Oh my, how intimidating. I'm sure you peed yourself when you read that article.

Is your real name Karen Snowflake???

IT CARRIES MORE WEIGHT THAN YOUR REDUX!

More about your hero!!


#1
Mueller’s ‘Pit Bull’ Andrew Weissmann Busted for Withholding Evidence in Previous Case​




• In 1997 Andrew Weissmann was officially reprimanded by a judge in the Eastern District of New York for withholding evidence.

• Weissmann was reported to the Department of Justice Inspector General and Senate Judiciary Committee for alleged “corrupt legal practices.”

• A formal letter from U.S. Attorney Eastern District of New York Zachary Carter requested the judge to remove Weissman’s name, according to documents.

• Civil rights and Criminal Defense Attorney David Schoen said Weissmann needs to be investigated for alleged past misconduct in court cases.​

...

Civil rights and criminal defense attorney David Schoen, was the lawyer who reported Weissmann. Schoen met with Inspector General Michael Horowitz and several FBI officials to discuss Weismann in 2015. Schoen, who says he has never been a member of a political party, told this reporter his concerns about Weissmann do not stem from politics but from Weissmann’s ‘egregious’ actions in previous cases. He became involved in Colombo crime cases more than 20 years ago after evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the case.



Does this sound familiar!!

Schoen’s work is not limited to criminal defense but also extended to civil right’s cases. He was awarded the prestigious National Pro Bono Publico award in 1995, and the American Bar Association reported that various federal judges credited him for positively changing “the face of public institutions in South.”

Schoen said he decided to revisit the nearly two-decade-long cases based on new witness information and “recent evidence that has come to light in the last several months.”

“The issue with Weissmann both pre-dates and transcends any of these current political issues,” said Schoen, who also used to represent the ACLU in civil rights cases in Alabama. “I have met with Senator (Charles) Grassley’s staff and the DOJ IG about these issues and that was well before all of this…I care about these issues as a person who chose this profession and am otherwise very proud to be able to practice law, as the proud son of an FBI agent, and as a civil rights attorney dedicated to doing my part in trying to improve public institutions.”

 

[HisArpy]

. . .says the guy that cites "Lawfare" that has been wrong on the law and their predictions of outcomes since its inception.

They will be wrong, once again, when Flynn is eventually exonerated after Sullivan's stalling reaches its conclusion.

Thus guy is a cartoon, citing old, already obsolete talking points and the discredited pundits and articles that supported those talking points before being demolished when events and actual reality intruded on those talking points.

His real problem is that he doesn't recognize that there are ALWAYS 2 sides to every issue. Instead he pronounces his declaration as if it is fact rather than conjecture. Anyone who takes the opposing side of the issue is automatically deemed to have "lost" even before the event takes place.

It is the most narcissistic debate behavior I have ever seen in anyone over the age of 12.

 

[icanhelp1]

The extraneous details he adds are puzzling. "Lied. Under OATH!" no he didn't. He was not even mirandized, much less sworn in and deposed for the FBI ambush.

There was no recording of the interview so no "transcript" redacted or no. There is a transcript of the call, and it does not match what the charging document claims was discussed in the call. There is no surviving record of any firsthand account of what was discussed in the interview. What were the questions? What were Flynn's responses?

All that remains that is contemporaneous to the interview was the disappointment that Flynn was not being deceptive or willfully inaccurate. They said they were under the impression that Flynn thought his recall was accurate.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly!! I forgot to mention not being mirandized but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that WH counsel was not informed of the interview was a red flag! He still doesn't get how Clinton is knee deep in shit with this FISA and Mueller report.

 

[Lazaran]

Lying to the FBI is a crime, so technically Flynn was under oath when he lied to the FBI. I'm sure Flynn was aware of this seeing as how he was "the former head of the DIA"

There is a redacted transcript of the particulars in the Flynn interview. Mueller provided the summary of the FD302 in response to Judge Sullivan's minute order.

You can access it via Documentcloud. FBI interview notes of Michael Flynn interview.

How is anyone supposed to take you guys seriously when you can't even use the Internet intelligently???

 

[Rightguide]

The extraneous details he adds are puzzling. "Lied. Under OATH!" no he didn't. He was not even mirandized, much less sworn in and deposed for the FBI ambush.

They (Lazaran and crew) say he lied because he pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI but give no weight to the fact he was coerced into doing so, or can cite the alleged lies that were material to their illegal investigation.

They also allege he was guilty of an unlawful relationship with Turkey, something he was never charged with.

 

[Rightguide]

Lying to the FBI is a crime, so technically Flynn was under oath when he lied to the FBI. I'm sure Flynn was aware of this seeing as how he was "the former head of the DIA"

Only if it is "material" to their investigation. That is the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1001, requires a false statement to be "materially" false, and you have to know at the time of making the statement it is false.

 

[HisArpy]

Lying to the FBI is a crime, so technically Flynn was under oath when he lied to the FBI. I'm sure Flynn was aware of this seeing as how he was "the former head of the DIA"

There is a redacted transcript of the particulars in the Flynn interview. Mueller provided the summary of the FD302 in response to Judge Sullivan's minute order.

You can access it via Documentcloud. FBI interview notes of Michael Flynn interview.

How is anyone supposed to take you guys seriously when you can't even use the Internet intelligently???

TECHNICALLY under oath? You've GOT to be kidding us if that's the basis of your statements.

Mueller's summary is not the original 302 either. Nor does that get around the fact that there IS exculpatory evidence, and that evidence WAS NOT turned over to the defense even after the prosecution was ordered to do so by the court.

So, what we have is someone who wasn't given his MANDATORY Miranda warnings; from FBI agents who stated that they did not believe Flynn's responses were inaccurate or lies; whose original field notes were destroyed after the 302 was re-written by someone other than them which changed the conclusion; which became the basis for the charging documents of lying to the FBI; which led to the government coercing Flynn by threatening his family, and failing to provide the evidence they had which showed they knew Flynn hadn't committed any crime; and upon eventual discovery of these facts, the government lawyers all resigned after the DOJ joined with the defense to request that the court dismiss the case.

And all of that somehow means in your mind that Flynn committed treason, even though we're not a war and treason has a VERY SPECIFIC AND LIMITED definition, and Flynn wasn't ever charged with treason.

Your legal analysis is a joke that ranks right up there with your inability to think logically.

 

[icanhelp1]

They (Lazaran and crew) say he lied because he pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI but give no weight to the fact he was coerced into doing so, or can cite the alleged lies that were material to their illegal investigation.

They also allege he was guilty of an unlawful relationship with Turkey, something he was never charged with.

I gave him two very detailed articles that explained pretty much everything, but! but! he lied nothing else matters.. Nothing was mentioned about Sullivans tirade about Flynn being a traitor or the Juror talking out of school. WE'D HAVE RIOTS IN THE STREETS IF THIS HAPPENED TO HILLARY, such hypocrisy. Can't wait for Durham's narrative.

 

[icanhelp1]

It's obvious he hasn't read License To Lie by Sidney Powell, which exposes the corruption of Weissmann and many others in the DOJ. I wonder if Lazaran understands how the Enron case fared in the SCOTUS, a 9-0 defeat for Weissman and team.

https://licensedtolie.com/

Big L thinks the Enron case is a victory for law and Justice and proves Weissmann is some sort of hero, how fucked up is that.

 

[Rightguide]

And all of that somehow means in your mind that Flynn committed treason, even though we're not a war and treason has a VERY SPECIFIC AND LIMITED definition, and Flynn wasn't ever charged with treason.

Your legal analysis is a joke that ranks right up there with your inability to think logically.

The scarey thought that judge Sullivan may be as dumb as a sack of hammers when he suggested Flynn may have committed treason had to cross many a mind, along with those of his clerks, It was after he came back from his chambers that he offered an apology for making the statement. Probably urged by them to do so.

 

[Rightguide]

Big L thinks the Enron case is a victory for law and Justice and proves Weissmann is some sort of hero, how fucked up is that.

We're talking about a galactic level of fucked up.

 

[Rightguide]

I gave him two very detailed articles that explained pretty much everything, but! but! he lied nothing else matters.. Nothing was mentioned about Sullivans tirade about Flynn being a traitor or the Juror talking out of school. WE'D HAVE RIOTS IN THE STREETS IF THIS HAPPENED TO HILLARY, such hypocrisy. Can't wait for Durham's narrative.

You know what they say about not casting pearls before swine, right?.

 

[HisArpy]

We're talking about a galactic level of fucked up.

Nothing like a 9-0 reversal by the US Supreme Court to show the world that Weismann fucked up yet somehow that makes him a hero in the eyes of some totally ignorant people.

 

[phrodeau]

Since the Clintons benefited from so many travesties of justice, Michael Flynn should get a travesty of his own. Great argument there.

 

[HisArpy]

The scarey thought that judge Sullivan may be as dumb as a sack of hammers when he suggested Flynn may have committed treason had to cross many a mind, along with those of his clerks, It was after he came back from his chambers that he offered an apology for making the statement. Probably urged by them to do so.

I find the scary part to lie in the fact that despite being shown the error of his ways when he made those statement, Sullivan REPEATED his mistake by trying to say that Flynn committed perjury.

I'm concerned for all the prior cases where there was a bench trial and the accused went to jail. Were those convictions because of the same kind of bias by the court?

 

[Conager]

Lying to the FBI is a crime, so technically Flynn was under oath when he lied to the FBI. I'm sure Flynn was aware of this seeing as how he was "the former head of the DIA"

There is a redacted transcript of the particulars in the Flynn interview. Mueller provided the summary of the FD302 in response to Judge Sullivan's minute order.

You can access it via Documentcloud. FBI interview notes of Michael Flynn interview.

How is anyone supposed to take you guys seriously when you can't even use the Internet intelligently???

Not at all under oath is the opposite of "under oath." No "technically" about it. He was not charged with perjury, be ause, specifically, he was not under oath.

I am sure Flynn would understand that knowingly and intentionally lying to the FBI in ways meant to materially misdirect an investigation is a crime. He did no such thing. None of those above, required elements of the crime were met. None of them.

You really are something else. Flynn had no idea why they were asking him about a call. The call that the transcript of the call shows nothing inappropriate for an incoming NSA.

"Lying" to the FBI however you choose to parse lying is not, itself, a crime. Inaccurate recall is not a crime, either. No one knows what he did or did not recall and what he said about the call because the original 302 was destroyed and heavily rewritten. Mueller's "summary" of a 302 that was a fabrication is at minimum three steps removed from a "transcript" of the interview.

The charging document states that Flynn lied through omission of certain things the charging document claims were in the call, that actually are not in the call, now that we have the transcript of the call.

Yet you persist in stupid.

 

[Lazaran]

Facts are stubborn things.

Flynn lied to the FBI which is a crime and someone of Flynns status is aware of that.

The charge Flynn pled guilty to was lying to the FBI, which he clearly did.

Flynn could also have been charged with violating the Logan act but those charges were dropped as part of his plea deal.

According to Trump himself, Flynn was acting as a rogue agent when he had his clandestine conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak.

A completely private citizen who was dealing with Russia would be bad enough, but a high ranking member of an incoming administration actively trying to subvert the current administrations foreign policy by making side deals with the Russian ambassador is borderline treasonous, considering Russia had just attacked our country.

Flynn deserves everything he got and everything that's coming to him.

 

[Conager]

He does not "deserve everything he got" but I agree he does deserve what is coming to him. Exoneration.

You keep repeating yourself despite having had each and every one of your positions patiently deconstructed and refuted.

 

[Rightguide]

I find the scary part to lie in the fact that despite being shown the error of his ways when he made those statement, Sullivan REPEATED his mistake by trying to say that Flynn committed perjury.

I'm concerned for all the prior cases where there was a bench trial and the accused went to jail. Were those convictions because of the same kind of bias by the court?

Too bad it's as hard as it is to get rid of shitty judge.

 

[HisArpy]

Facts are stubborn things.

Flynn lied to the FBI which is a crime and someone of Flynns status is aware of that.

The charge Flynn pled guilty to was lying to the FBI, which he clearly did.

Flynn could also have been charged with violating the Logan act but those charges were dropped as part of his plea deal.

According to Trump himself, Flynn was acting as a rogue agent when he had his clandestine conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak.

A completely private citizen who was dealing with Russia would be bad enough, but a high ranking member of an incoming administration actively trying to subvert the current administrations foreign policy by making side deals with the Russian ambassador is borderline treasonous, considering Russia had just attacked our country.

Flynn deserves everything he got and everything that's coming to him.

Yes, facts ARE stubborn things.

Like the fact that the government withheld evidence. Like the fact that the government entrapped Flynn. Like the fact that the government violated protocols AND the law when the FBI interviewed Flynn without giving notice to the WH counsel's office so he could have counsel present during questioning AND didn't read him his Miranda Rights before questioning him. Like the fact that the government FABRICATED evidence.

Stubborn things those pesky facts. Especially when they're right in front of you. Too bad all you can see is a political narrative rather than facts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Facts are stubborn things.

Flynn lied to the FBI which is a crime and someone of Flynns status is aware of that.

The charge Flynn pled guilty to was lying to the FBI, which he clearly did.

Flynn could also have been charged with violating the Logan act but those charges were dropped as part of his plea deal.

According to Trump himself, Flynn was acting as a rogue agent when he had his clandestine conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak.

A completely private citizen who was dealing with Russia would be bad enough, but a high ranking member of an incoming administration actively trying to subvert the current administrations foreign policy by making side deals with the Russian ambassador is borderline treasonous, considering Russia had just attacked our country.

Flynn deserves everything he got and everything that's coming to him.

^^^^^^^^^


" knowingly making the false statements during his Jan. 24, 2017, voluntary interview with the FBI.

Based on the latest release of documents, the original FBI agents assigned to the matter had decided almost three weeks beforehand—on Jan. 4—to close its file on Flynn because he “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger Crossfire Hurricane [Russian Interference] case.”

What changed? FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who the FBI later fired for his misconduct and bias against Trump during the Russia investigation, intervened and asked that the case not be closed.

It has been widely reported that, immediately after that interview, the interviewing agents—including Strzok—told their superiors that they didn’t think Flynn had lied to them.

This is not dispositive one way or the other; we have all been fooled at one time or another by very good liars. But such information is certainly exculpatory and likely should have been disclosed to Flynn and his defense team.

If any misstatements by Flynn during his interview truly were unintentional, then why would Flynn plead guilty?

One possible answer is that he faced other legal issues and sought to avoid being prosecuted for those other actions by pleading guilty to this charge.

Another, more troubling possibility, is that Flynn agreed to plead guilty so that his son wouldn’t be prosecuted for a felony offense involving a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act for work done long before Flynn’s involvement with the Trump campaign.

 

[icanhelp1]

A famous speech from Attorney General Robert Jackson,

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Sound familiar?

 

[Lazaran]

His real problem is that he doesn't recognize that there are ALWAYS 2 sides to every issue. Instead he pronounces his declaration as if it is fact rather than conjecture. Anyone who takes the opposing side of the issue is automatically deemed to have "lost" even before the event takes place.

It is the most narcissistic debate behavior I have ever seen in anyone over the age of 12.

Oh come on,...... You must realize by now that I often parody the debating style of intransigent right wing Sea Lions, don't you????

The difference is, I have actually cited court rulings, government transcripts, relevant individuals explanations for their notes, and actual testimony in the Flynn case.

Do you think if the FD302 summary of the FBI agents interview with Flynn was materially different than the notes the agents themselves had taken, the court wouldn't have addressed it.????

Do you really think Mueller would have submitted a fraudulent summary of the agents notes to the court????

Judge Sullivan already ruled that the FD302 tracks with the interviewing FBI agents notes.

Of course I forgot, it's all a big cabal designed to take down Flynn and Trump.

Trump finally got "his man" as attorney general, and Flynn saw an opportunity to exploit it. Just like Stone did.

It doesn't change the fact that Flynn KNOWINGLY lied to the FBI. Just compare the transcript of the phone call with Kislyak, with the transcript of the FD302.

It isn't that complicated.

PS... The original investigation of the Trump campaign was totally justified, as was the investigation into Flynn. The FBIs inspector general already Investigated the matter and decided that it was justified.

Of course the right wing will throw some shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks, but as of right now, those are the facts.