You are getting very far away from the important question, I understand why, but that question is, did flan lie to the FBI?
Is Special Counsel Mueller’s Office About to Have Its First Conviction Overturned?
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
You are getting very far away from the important question, I understand why, but that question is, did flan lie to the FBI?
everything Mueller is doing, is about to be thrown out, rendered partisan hack job
the FBI, and the entire Obama bag of nut-cases were all up to no good, and they are getting exposed, one rat at a time
It all comes out in the wash, as they say
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mi...r-file-could-rile-judge-in-sentencing-hearing
what's he waiting for, Jan 2025
You have been saying that for over a year now. It only gets worse for the president.
I am laughing at you.
sure he lied about discussing sanctions - so what?
What business was it of the FBI what he and Kysliak discussed? What business is it of the FBI if Flynn lied to Pense?
and AGAIN the process the FBI used to get Flynn to "lie" was so egregious.
Again it was a PROCESS CRIME -if this bullshit investigation ( which is what i was - not a "interview" as sold by Mccabe) there would have been no lie to the FBI?
classic entrapment
jimmymccready
Verified User
Mueller has Flynn legally, morally, and ethically committed to his plea deal, conviction, and coming sentence.
Anyone who holds out hope for this case to be overturned is an . . . idiot.
That is the only appropriate characterization.
You conspiracy righties need to start taking your meds.
Noise is another charter member of The Dense Dunce Gang. He has no idea what a 'process crime' is, which much less what it means. And the FBI has every right to investigate members of the government who are hobbing with those they should not be nobbing if they can't tell the truth about it.
And each day is worse than the day before, increasingly a bad day each and every day for the President.
Anyone who holds out hope for this case to be overturned is an . . . idiot.
That is the only appropriate characterization.
You conspiracy righties need to start taking your meds.
You fool, it is you who is laughed at every single day on this Board. You are incredibly dense, so you are now The Dense Dunce.
Noise is another charter member of The Dense Dunce Gang. He has no idea what a 'process crime' is, which much less what it means. And the FBI has every right to investigate members of the government who are hobbing with those they should not be nobbing if they can't tell the truth about it.
And each day is worse than the day before, increasingly a bad day each and every day for the President.
Centerleftfl
Verified User
EPOCH TIMES? Seriously?
jimmymccready
Verified User
Flynn cannot withdraw his plea. He has been convicted. He can appeal the conviction but not withdraw the plea.
He has been nabbed and grabbed fairly.
He has been nabbed and grabbed fairly.
Centerleftfl
Verified User
Chutzpah from the REPUBLICANS who chose him, approved him and who they drew from THEIR own party? Wow, thank god MUELLER isn't a DEMOCRAT!
Rosenstein chose him. If you think Mueller being a registered Republican, or Comey the same makes any difference..
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Bullshit, it was entrapment and will be overturned.
I have my doubts.
we don't get a lot of justice when it comes to special prosecutors who live on the edge with their convictions.
all the entrapment can and is probably shown to Sullivan- but he can simply comment and leave the conviction
as it's clear Flynn lied about "talking about sanctions" - even if it was thru a corrupt process
jimmymccready
Verified User
Havana Moon has no idea what is a 'process crime' or 'entrapment.' He and others who use those terms are talking through their asses.
Flynn was taken down fairly and squarely. He will be sentenced. Nothing can be done about that . . . nothing.
Noise, of all people, understands that. Good on him.
Trump however can pardon him.
Judge Nap on Flynn Sentencing: No Entrapment, No Basis to ... insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/judge-napolitano-michael... 2 hours ago · Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano disagrees with Rep. Darrell Issa and others who have argued that Michael Flynn was the victim of entrapment.
Flynn was taken down fairly and squarely. He will be sentenced. Nothing can be done about that . . . nothing.
Noise, of all people, understands that. Good on him.
Trump however can pardon him.
Judge Nap on Flynn Sentencing: No Entrapment, No Basis to ... insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/judge-napolitano-michael... 2 hours ago · Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano disagrees with Rep. Darrell Issa and others who have argued that Michael Flynn was the victim of entrapment.
floridafan
Verified User
Its all a game, no one knows the facts in this case.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Give me a fucking break, he lied to Pence and the FBI asked him about that in an informal setting without declaring in advance what was really going on!!
Flynn, during his brief time as national security adviser to President Trump, told FBI agents untruths that are contradicted by hard evidence. Why he did that remains a mystery because, with his vast experience in intelligence gathering, he must have known that the FBI had hard evidence of the conversations he denied having with a Russian diplomat. Be that as it may, this reality does not automatically exclude the possibility that the FBI acted improperly in eliciting untruths from him.
The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations?
Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump.
If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”
Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Experienced criminal lawyers have seen this phenomenon at work.
Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia Court also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.
Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true.
But they are targeted not because of what they may have done.
They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done.
Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.
So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable to use in our justice system.
Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?
These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses.
They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test.
How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached
The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.
So back to the question of whether citizens who care about civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn.
I believe the answer should be no. The function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity.
There may be extraordinary situations, such as prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit federal crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.
When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie.
If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth.
The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the special counsel have, indeed, been ignoble.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...chael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly
The FBI knew the truth. They had recordings of the conversations. Then why did they ask him whether he had those conversations?
Obviously, not to learn whether he had them but, rather, to give him the opportunity to lie under oath so that they could squeeze him to provide incriminating information against President Trump.
If you do not believe me, read what Judge T.S. Ellis III, who presided over the Paul Manafort trial, said to the prosecutors: “You do not really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”
Ellis continued: “This vernacular to ‘sing’ is what prosecutors use. What you have got to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” Experienced criminal lawyers have seen this phenomenon at work.
Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly as Ellis did. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia Court also has expressed concern regarding federal prosecutorial practices in the investigation.
Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true.
But they are targeted not because of what they may have done.
They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done.
Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.
So the real question, which transcends the Flynn, the Manafort, and even the Trump investigations, is whether these tactics should be deemed acceptable to use in our justice system.
Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target?
These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses.
They should not be addressed in a partisan manner. Instead, they should be answered by reference to the “shoe on the other foot” test.
How would liberal Democrats react if those or similar prosecutorial tactics were being used against a president Hillary Clinton? I know the answer because I have seen how liberal Democrats reacted when President Bill Clinton was being investigated and impeached
The shoe was, indeed, on the other foot. Some of the same liberal Democrats, who today are justifying everything Mueller is doing, expressed outrage when the special prosecutor in the Clinton case employed similar tactics. Nor did all conservative Republicans pass the “shoe on the other foot” test as many applauded these tactics when directed against Democrats.
So back to the question of whether citizens who care about civil liberties should favor the tactics used by the FBI against Flynn.
I believe the answer should be no. The function of law enforcement is to uncover past crimes, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes by testing their veracity.
There may be extraordinary situations, such as prevention of mass casualty terrorism, that justifies the use of highly questionable tactics but, absent such extraordinary circumstances, FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit federal crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.
When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie.
If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth.
The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the special counsel have, indeed, been ignoble.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...chael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly
jimmymccready
Verified User
No one, Havana Moon, had to give to declare in advance to the the liar (as you admitted he was) what the intent of the FBI agents. All Flynn had to do was be honest. He was not. So, no break for Flynn and no break for you.
And, yes, noise, the FBI followed fair and true practices in tripping up a liar. Flynn lied to the Vice-President then to the FBI.
So we have far right troll bots arguing that the liar was treated unfairly. The agents have every professional right to see if an interviewee will lie. Such behavior makes the agents aware of the type of scum with which they are dealing.
And, yes, noise, the FBI followed fair and true practices in tripping up a liar. Flynn lied to the Vice-President then to the FBI.
So we have far right troll bots arguing that the liar was treated unfairly. The agents have every professional right to see if an interviewee will lie. Such behavior makes the agents aware of the type of scum with which they are dealing.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Mueller's entire charade is about to fall apart, he is about to get bitch slapped by a federal judge
When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie.
If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth.
Defenders of the tactics used by special counsel Robert Mueller argue that his potential witnesses are generally guilty of some crime, such as lying to FBI agents, and that may well be true.
But they are targeted not because of what they may have done.
They are targeted for what they may know about what the real target may have done.
Then they, and their relatives who may also be complicit, are threatened with imprisonment and bankruptcy unless they plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.
The author is Jennifer Granick, an distinguish lawyer and teacher at Sanford Law School who is famous for her involvement in Constitutional cases. She also contributing to "the Hill," a nonpartisan sight that if anything leads slightly right
Now, seeing you are dismissing via sources, your source is an article appearing in "the deep state," what ever the hell that is, who actually copied it from a discredited website known as "the Doran." It's author, Alexander Mercouris, is a disbarred lawyer who works for Putin (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...er-turned-pro-putin-commentator-investigated/)
I'll go with Ms Garland view
Getin the ring
Verified User
you do that, Mueller and everything he has been doing, wasting 30 million dollars to date is about to be rendered useless
just stay tuned
just stay tuned
I'll go with logic. arguing sources is a fools game.The author is Jennifer Granick, an distinguish lawyer and teacher at Sanford Law School who is famous for her involvement in Constitutional cases. She also contributing to "the Hill," a nonpartisan sight that if anything leads slightly right
Now, seeing you are dismissing via sources, your source is an article appearing in "the deep state," what ever the hell that is, who actually copied it from a discredited website known as "the Doran." It's author, Alexander Mercouris, is a disbarred lawyer who works for Putin (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...er-turned-pro-putin-commentator-investigated/)
I'll go with Ms Garland view
I merlely mentioned it.
You can address the rest of my post, which so far you have chosen not to