Jump to content
Awful horrible bad shit is happening in the USA right now, if you are afraid of your fucking feelings getting hurt this isn't the website for you. ×
Hugo Stiglitz

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this thread:

CharmingRegalErin-size_restricted.gif

More accurate if they were in a quarantine cage throwing empty bottles at each other. 

 

The thread was a lot more fun when people were getting all amped up about Prague for the second time, or a server for the third.  The good ole days.

 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That is not WaPo, that is an opinion piece by a conservative political pundit who has no idea where that info came from. A little advice going forward in life, when you get to the part of a paper or a website that is entitled "opinion", the views you read there are not those of the paper nor are they fact checked or vetted, they are opinions, not unlike what we post here. 

Here is the article that you didn't link for reference......https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/14/someone-committed-crime-michael-flynn-case-it-wasnt-him/

Fair enough.  The WaPo article that broke the leak was also an opinion piece from David Ignatius.  Are you ok with him?

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

Fair enough.  The WaPo article that broke the leak was also an opinion piece from David Ignatius.  Are you ok with him?

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

You and I are in agreement that anybody who leaks classified information (or commits any crime) should be punished, whether it be Susan Rice or Devin Nunes. I'll take Ignatius's word for it if he broke the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Discussed in detail starting on page 247.

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf

 

Interesting, I never got that far in the weeds. That dude fucked up for sure but seems very unlikely that would be a crime. Possibly a violation of FBI procedure, but that would be a hard to indict on. 

For those that didn't get down to pg. 247. They cover email and IM exchanges between FBI agents, an FBI lawyer, and a rep from an unnamed agency, probably CIA. The FBI lawyer asks the other agency if Page was a source because they would need to include that in the FISA application. The other agency says they sent stuff about Page to them already and that he was likely a "digraph", meaning that he had interacted with the other agencies source but was not a source himself but he could be a sub-source, a source to the source. The FBI attorney eventually forwards an email exchange that includes the original email and he inserts after "digraph" - "Not a source" . The FBI agents use that as reasoning not to include that Page was a source/sub-source in a footnote in the FISA. So the crime would be the lawyer inserting his own color on the forwarded email without letting the recipient know it was his own commentary. The commentary wasn't necessarily incorrect either, as Paige was not a source to the other agency, rather a source to their source. Any Shaggy lawyers want to weigh in on this. 

Thank you for pointing out the page Anastasis, much appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The commentary wasn't necessarily incorrect either, as Paige was not a source to the other agency, rather a source to their source.

I don't believe that this is a correct reading.

The OGC Attorney told us that- his belief that Page had never been a source for the other U.S. government agency, but instead interacted with a source-was based on telephone conversations with the Liaison. He said he recalled the Liaison "saying that [Page] was not a source of theirs," but rather "incidentally reporting information via a source of theirs" and that they "ended up not actually opening him. "396

When we asked the Liaison about the OGC Attorney's interpretation of the Liaison's email, the Liaison told us that her email stated just the opposite, namely that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the other U.S. government agency in the past. The Liaison also said that the reason she offered, in her email, to assist in providing language for the FISA application was because she was telling the OGC Attorney that, using the FBI's terminology, Page had been a source for the other agency. The Liaison also stated that she saw no basis for the OGC Attorney to have concluded, based on their communications and the August 17 Memorandum, that Page never had a direct relationship with the other agency. 

...

The Liaison focused on the portion of the exchange in which the 0GC Attorney stated that Page "was never a source." The Liaison told us that this statement was wrong, as was the 0GC Attorney's statement that Page "was a U.S. sub-source of a source." The Liaison said that such an assertion is "directly contradictory to the [documents]" the agency provided to the FBI. The Liaison also said it was inaccurate to describe Carter Page as "like a sub-source of [a digraph]" and to state that the other agency had "confirmed explicitly that [Page] was never a source."

 

 

As far as the rest, every other individual involved in the episode felt that the omission of context and altering of the email reflected a substantive alteration of the communication. In the context of their IM exchange, it was clear what he was doing.  He told the SSA that the CIA liaison had explicitly told him that Page was not a CIA source.  The CIA liaison never told him that.  So he added it to the email exchange with the CIA liaison. He didn't want to have to write a "terrible footnote" in the FISA submission. 

 

The SSA knew what was up after it all got unpacked.

SSA 2 also said that he understood the OGC Attorney's comment about not having to draft a "terrible footnote" to mean that the team could avoid having to explain in Renewal Application No. 3 that they had "just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and 253 probably being tasked to engage ... [with] Russians which is ... why we opened a case on him."

 

Likewise the OI attorney.

The 01 Attorney also focused on the portion of the exchange where SSA 2 expressed a belief that Page was a source and where the 0GC Attorney mentioned not having to prepare a "terrible footnote." He told us that 01 should have been made aware of any "internal debate" within the FBI about whether Page was a source for another U.S. government agency, because with the FISC there is no "defense counsel on the other side," and it is up to 01 "to over tell the story."

 

33 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The FBI attorney eventually forwards an email exchange that includes the original email and he inserts after "digraph" - "Not a source" .

 So the crime would be the lawyer inserting his own color on the forwarded email without letting the recipient know it was his own commentary.

Also, this is not color and commentary, it was direct alteration of the key content in the exchange, blended in with the words of the unaltered email to make it appears as though they came from the CIA liaison.

Immediately following the June 19 instant message exchange between the 0GC Attorney and SSA 2, SSA 2 received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison's June 15 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source,,, had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added). The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA 2 the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a "[ digraph] source. "398

 

All of the people involved in the situation knew exactly what was done, why it was important, and why it was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't believe that this is a correct reading.

The OGC Attorney told us that- his belief that Page had never been a source for the other U.S. government agency, but instead interacted with a source-was based on telephone conversations with the Liaison. He said he recalled the Liaison "saying that [Page] was not a source of theirs," but rather "incidentally reporting information via a source of theirs" and that they "ended up not actually opening him. "396

When we asked the Liaison about the OGC Attorney's interpretation of the Liaison's email, the Liaison told us that her email stated just the opposite, namely that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the other U.S. government agency in the past. The Liaison also said that the reason she offered, in her email, to assist in providing language for the FISA application was because she was telling the OGC Attorney that, using the FBI's terminology, Page had been a source for the other agency. The Liaison also stated that she saw no basis for the OGC Attorney to have concluded, based on their communications and the August 17 Memorandum, that Page never had a direct relationship with the other agency. 

...

The Liaison focused on the portion of the exchange in which the 0GC Attorney stated that Page "was never a source." The Liaison told us that this statement was wrong, as was the 0GC Attorney's statement that Page "was a U.S. sub-source of a source." The Liaison said that such an assertion is "directly contradictory to the [documents]" the agency provided to the FBI. The Liaison also said it was inaccurate to describe Carter Page as "like a sub-source of [a digraph]" and to state that the other agency had "confirmed explicitly that [Page] was never a source."

 

 

As far as the rest, every other individual involved in the episode felt that the omission of context and altering of the email reflected a substantive alteration of the communication. In the context of their IM exchange, it was clear what he was doing.  He told the SSA that the CIA liaison had explicitly told him that Page was not a CIA source.  The CIA liaison never told him that.  So he added it to the email exchange with the CIA liaison. He didn't want to have to write a "terrible footnote" in the FISA submission. 

 

The SSA knew what was up after it all got unpacked.

SSA 2 also said that he understood the OGC Attorney's comment about not having to draft a "terrible footnote" to mean that the team could avoid having to explain in Renewal Application No. 3 that they had "just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and 253 probably being tasked to engage ... [with] Russians which is ... why we opened a case on him."

 

Likewise the OI attorney.

The 01 Attorney also focused on the portion of the exchange where SSA 2 expressed a belief that Page was a source and where the 0GC Attorney mentioned not having to prepare a "terrible footnote." He told us that 01 should have been made aware of any "internal debate" within the FBI about whether Page was a source for another U.S. government agency, because with the FISC there is no "defense counsel on the other side," and it is up to 01 "to over tell the story."

 

Also, this is not color and commentary, it was direct alteration of the key content in the exchange, blended in with the words of the unaltered email to make it appears as though they came from the CIA liaison.

Immediately following the June 19 instant message exchange between the 0GC Attorney and SSA 2, SSA 2 received an email from the 0GC Attorney that appeared to be forwarding the Liaison's June 15 response email concerning Page's historical contact with the other U.S. government agency. However, the 0IG determined that this forwarded version of the Liaison's response email had been altered. Specifically, the words "and not a 'source,,, had been inserted in the Liaison's June 15 response after the word "[digraph]." Thus, the Liaison's email was altered to read: "My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] '[digraph]' and not a 'source' but the [documents] will explain the details." (Emphasis added). The OGC Attorney also did not include in the email sent to SSA 2 the initial email inquiry from the OGC Attorney to the Liaison about Page's status as a "[ digraph] source. "398

 

All of the people involved in the situation knew exactly what was done, why it was important, and why it was wrong. 

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

Edited by Lagunamadre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

The standards of propriety do seem a tad askew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why the fuck would a special counsel have been needed to investigate the Clinton campaign?

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, notre dame joe said:

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

What do you think the purpose of a special counsel investigation is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It's pretty well known that they were coordinating to raise money from China.  It's also old news as in, the other Clinton. 

Someone should have probably investigated the other Clinton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8344205/Donald-Trumps-disgraced-attorney-Michael-Cohen-FREE-released-early.html

Quote

President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen was freed from federal prison just before 9am Thursday to serve the remainder of his sentence at home.

Cohen had been serving a federal prison sentence at FCI Otisville in New York after pleading guilty to numerous charges, including campaign finance fraud and lying to Congress.

He was seen leaving the low-security prison in a silver Mercedes A-class sedan driven by his son Jake. He was not wearing a mask and was wearing a crisp white shirt with French cuffs and no tie.

Later Cohen was seen arriving at his Manhattan apartment, wearing a University of Miami cap and a mask. His personal items, including a box clearly marked 'Legal Documents', were brought in a luggage cart and carried in by his son Jake.  

28666176-8344205-image-m-15_159007290724

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

Look, the prison industry isn't going to populate those cells all by itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Look, the prison industry isn't going to populate those cells all by itself.

That's what the war on black people drugs is for, durrrr. Can't have all these white collar criminals filling the cells up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8344205/Donald-Trumps-disgraced-attorney-Michael-Cohen-FREE-released-early.html

28666176-8344205-image-m-15_159007290724

so i guess this brings into question the purpose of putting these non violent type people in prison. 

I never would have thought at the beginning of this whole alternate reality that Cohen would become the only sympathetic character in Trump's orbit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

So why no indictments? What is Barr waiting on if there is already enough evidence to present to a grand jury? Not being snarky, honest question. 

Is this the only crime uncovered so far? A lawyer in the FBI altering three words in an email? Not saying it wasn't wrong, but not quite earth shattering. 

It really depends on the 3 words that were omitted.  The reason it was actually "earth shattering" is because the warrant would not have been approved as written if the FBI admitted that Page was a source for the CIA.  The application process would get much, much more difficult and more people would have to be made aware of the request.  There is a reason that the judges in FISA cases ask if the person in question was working with any other agency.  It immediately sends up lots of flares and concerns when it does.  The FBI did not want close scrutiny of the application so they just lied about it.

Also, I do think indictments will result from Durham's probe but I doubt they get to director level or higher.  We will see when the actual report comes out but there is another angle to it that most people have forgotten about.  When the FBI used the dossier as part of their evidence against Page, they had to have, by statute, additional corroborating evidence.  That is the standard for FISA.  The FBI used the media story about the same allegations against Page and claimed that the media article served as independent corroboration.  And as part of their filing they included that  (paraphrasing) the source for the Dossier (Steele) had not spoken to any media, which then allowed them to use the other media story as corroboration.  The problem though, is that the author of the corroborating story openly and publicly stated that Steele was his source.  And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

I thought Barr has determined that this is no longer a crime? 

Edited by Lagunamadre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

It really depends on the 3 words that were omitted.  The reason it was actually "earth shattering" is because the warrant would not have been approved as written if the FBI admitted that Page was a source for the CIA.  The application process would get much, much more difficult and more people would have to be made aware of the request.  There is a reason that the judges in FISA cases ask if the person in question was working with any other agency.  It immediately sends up lots of flares and concerns when it does.  The FBI did not want close scrutiny of the application so they just lied about it.

Also, I do think indictments will result from Durham's probe but I doubt they get to director level or higher.  We will see when the actual report comes out but there is another angle to it that most people have forgotten about.  When the FBI used the dossier as part of their evidence against Page, they had to have, by statute, additional corroborating evidence.  That is the standard for FISA.  The FBI used the media story about the same allegations against Page and claimed that the media article served as independent corroboration.  And as part of their filing they included that  (paraphrasing) the source for the Dossier (Steele) had not spoken to any media, which then allowed them to use the other media story as corroboration.  The problem though, is that the author of the corroborating story openly and publicly stated that Steele was his source.  And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media.  So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application.  The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.  

Paige was never indicted. I doubt the public is going to find it earth shattering that a FISA was granted to listen to a guy who is a self-proclaimed "informal advisor to the Kremlin", while the Kremlin was engaged in digital warfare against the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I thought Barr has determined that this is no longer a crime? 

Actually no.  What Barr found was that, in this particular case, a particular defendant that plead guilty had exculpatory evidence in his favor that was withheld, illegally, from his defense team.  That it is unclear that an actual lie took place, certainly not knowingly or intentional.  That the supposed lie had no material effect on any ongoing investigation and that the case was scheduled to be closed because the FBI's own field office recommended "the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.""

If those same facts exist with Steele or the FBI then they should walk also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms.  - 'stasis' Mom

Actually, it is pretty normal.

Once the GJ material is disclosed, there's no putting the cat back in the bag.  I'd expect this kind of ruling from any Supreme Court in a case like that.

As to how the actual appeal comes out, that's a different story.  The governing rule, Rule 6, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure is not completely clear on that.  Because Congress is free to fix that for the future and maybe retroactively, I might see the Supremes ruling that there's no "inherent" or "implied" right of Congress to GJ material, or that impeachment is "another judicial proceeding."

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, it is pretty normal.

Once the GJ material is disclosed, there's no putting the cat back in the bag.  I'd expect this kind of ruling from any Supreme Court in a case like that.

As to how the actual appeal comes out, that's a different story.  The governing rule, Rule 6, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure is not completely clear on that.  Because Congress is free to fix that for the future, I might see the Supremes ruling that there's no "inherent" or "implied" right of Congress to GJ material.

Workin' up the #6 on 'em. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Paige was never indicted. I doubt the public is going to find it earth shattering that a FISA was granted to listen to a guy who is a self-proclaimed "informal advisor to the Kremlin", while the Kremlin was engaged in digital warfare against the US. 

Lulz.  Page said he was an advisor to the Kremlin in his marketing of himself for his own financial benefit and said it was on energy related matters.  There are  1000s of other finance folks, and 1000s of attorneys and 100,000s of business guys that tout their relationship with russia and the Kremlin.   Are they all spies?  Should we surveil all of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Totes norms.  - 'stasis' Mom

This is and was completely normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Actually no.  What Barr found was that, in this particular case, a particular defendant that plead guilty had exculpatory evidence in his favor that was withheld, illegally, from his defense team.  That it is unclear that an actual lie took place, certainly not knowingly or intentional.  That the supposed lie had no material effect on any ongoing investigation and that the case was scheduled to be closed because the FBI's own field office recommended "the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.""

If those same facts exist with Steele or the FBI then they should walk also.

Counterpoint.

By pleading guilty simultaneously with being "indicted,"** Flynn waived his right to discovery from the government and any right or claim under Brady for wrongful withholding.

**I say "indicted" because he was never indicted.  His plea agreement was filed simultaneously with an information charging a crime.  That is, he pled guilty before charges were even filed.   An information is filed before a case is given to a grand jury.  A defendant has the right to have his case put before the grand jury.  Flynn waived that, too.

Also, I would make an educated guess that if these same facts arose with a different defendant, or the same defendant and a different DOJ, neither defendant would be acquitted, nor would the case be dismissed on account of a Brady violation.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Counterpoint.

By pleading guilty simultaneously with being "indicted,"** Flynn waived his right to discovery from the government and any right or claim under Brady for wrongful withholding.

**I say indicted because he was never indicted.  His plea agreement was filed simultaneously with an information charging a crime.  An information is filed before a case is given to a grand jury.  A defendant has the right to have his case put before the grand jury.  Flynn waived that, too.

Interesting.  Is that the case in any plea deal?  if I am understanding what you are saying, the government can withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant and if that defendant pleads guilty, then the government gets away with it?  That seems unlikely?  What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Interesting.  Is that the case in any plea deal?  if I am understanding what you are saying, the government can withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant and if that defendant pleads guilty, then the government gets away with it?  That seems unlikely?  What am I missing?

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Exactly.  Anastasis demands that every investigation of <checks notes> conservative actors be done 100% by the book, and if any individual strays even a pubic hair, the whole investigation is rendered moot.

Meanwhile, POTUS and his family have been actively courting successful enemy interference in our elections.  Ah well, nevertheless.

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

That's why we have these things called judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's why we have these things called judges.

And why full transparency and adherence to the procedures in filings presented to these judges is important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would expect that when our government deploys the surveillance apparatus in a political context, that yes, it is done by the book.  I have a problem with politically motivated, unvetted information from foreign spooks packaging up Russian disinformation through a screen of political operatives being used uncritically by the FBI at the intersection of politics and civil liberties.  The "book" exists in this case for a reason, and that is to protect your right as an American citizen under the Constitution. 

Crazy shit I know. 

 

LMAO.  You don't care about my rights, or the rights of anyone who doesn't look, act, and think like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

Thanks.  Sounds like he had inept lawyers.  Is there a distinction between what he had a right to receive and what the DOJ told him?  Not sure how to phrase the question, but in reading about the case, it says that on at least 3 occasions the prosecutor, Van Grack, signed sworn affidavits to the judge that he had turned over everything he was required to turn over.  Obviously that was a lie as we now know.  It just seems strange that the government can get into court, in front of a judge on multiple occasions, and swear they had turned everything over, and then make a deal that says you can't have any more info after the deal.  

Seems it would be nearly impossible to counsel your client that way.  If counsel tells their client, we have seen all of the evidence and based, on that, you need to plead because they will gut us if we go to court, so you plead.  But then later find out the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, you have no recourse?  I know the law is funny sometimes but that just doesn't make sense.  

Is the distinction "pleading before being charged"?  Obviously there was a ton of back and forth between the parties as they hammered out a deal.  So is it just a technicality that he shouldn't get discovery after a plea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And why full transparency and adherence to the procedures in filings presented to these judges is important. 

No one is disputing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted.  Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin.  In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea.  But it is ended by the guilty plea:  you have no right to further discovery once you plead.

But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.

As an aside, I am curious about your take on the withholding of the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak from Flynn and his lawyers.  Did you know that was legal?  That kind of shocks me.  If I read it correctly, you can be questioned by the FBI about a phone call and then later the FBI can come back to you and accuse you of lying about the phone call and when you say that you did not lie and ask them to show you the transcript of the call where you are accused of lying they can basically say no.  Then they can start grinding on you and costing you tons of money and you do not even know how to respond because there is no record for you to see and, of course, you likely have no memory of the actual call specifics.  How would you personally counsel someone in that situation?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

As an aside, I am curious about your take on the withholding of the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak from Flynn and his lawyers.  Did you know that was legal?  That kind of shocks me.  If I read it correctly, you can be questioned by the FBI about a phone call and then later the FBI can come back to you and accuse you of lying about the phone call and when you say that you did not lie and ask them to show you the transcript of the call where you are accused of lying they can basically say no.  Then they can start grinding on you and costing you tons of money and you do not even know how to respond because there is no record for you to see and, of course, you likely have no memory of the actual call specifics.  How would you personally counsel someone in that situation?  

You don't have to tell the FBI anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You don't have to tell the FBI anything.

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Thanks.  Sounds like he had inept lawyers.  Is there a distinction between what he had a right to receive and what the DOJ told him?  Not sure how to phrase the question, but in reading about the case, it says that on at least 3 occasions the prosecutor, Van Grack, signed sworn affidavits to the judge that he had turned over everything he was required to turn over.  Obviously that was a lie as we now know.  It just seems strange that the government can get into court, in front of a judge on multiple occasions, and swear they had turned everything over, and then make a deal that says you can't have any more info after the deal.  

Seems it would be nearly impossible to counsel your client that way.  If counsel tells their client, we have seen all of the evidence and based, on that, you need to plead because they will gut us if we go to court, so you plead.  But then later find out the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, you have no recourse?  I know the law is funny sometimes but that just doesn't make sense.  

Is the distinction "pleading before being charged"?  Obviously there was a ton of back and forth between the parties as they hammered out a deal.  So is it just a technicality that he shouldn't get discovery after a plea?

Like many things it was probably legal because you cannot prove the intensions of the parties.  Flynn's first lawyers were bending over to get on the right side of the special counsel and were willing to make a deal on the condition that evidence would not have to be revealed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  You don't care about my rights, or the rights of anyone who doesn't look, act, and think like you.

Even lazier than the board has become accustomed to from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

no, like in the instance where Flynn lied, he literally didn't have to tell the FBI anything. It was a voluntary interview in his own office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Even lazier than the board has become accustomed to from you. 

<zing>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Like many things it was probably legal because you cannot prove the intensions of the parties.  Flynn's first lawyers were bending over to get on the right side of the special counsel and were willing to make a deal on the condition that evidence would not have to be revealed. 

Not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting Flynn's original lawyers were just trying to appease the special counsel so they could cut a good deal for Flynn?  That when they cut the deal, they knew there was more evidence out there but agreed to bury it in order to cut a deal?  That sounds like malpractice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting Flynn's original lawyers were just trying to appease the special counsel so they could cut a good deal for Flynn?  That when they cut the deal, they knew there was more evidence out there but agreed to bury it in order to cut a deal?  That sounds like malpractice.

 

That's certainly the story that his current lawyer tells.  I don't think it can be legal malpractice if the bottom line is a plea deal for no jail time.  

 

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

he literally didn't have to tell the FBI anything. It was a voluntary interview in his own office.

with people he would be working with on important matters of national security.  And that should show you just how horrible a person we have in James Comey.  He was willing to back stab a fellow officer, ensuring mass distrust within the executive branch, just so he could pursue his vendetta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That's certainly the story that his current lawyer tells.  I don't think it can be legal malpractice if the bottom line is a plea deal for no jail time.  

 

with people he would be working with on important matters of national security.  And that should show you just how horrible a person we have in James Comey.  He was willing to back stab a fellow officer, ensuring mass distrust within the executive branch, just so he could pursue his vendetta.

There are quite a few partners at Flynn's ex lawfirm.

https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/h/eric-holder

This is one of them.

 

Edited by Poolflood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those who are interested in the inside baseball of Mueller's testimony, here is a release of some documents:

Pages of note in my skimming of the pages this morning:

25-30 official subpoena of Mueller to attend

bottom of page 50-51, this discusses, If I read it right, the limitations Mueller was expected to follow

57-58 concerning leak to press about what they are discussing re: Mueller testimony

88-90  Schiff last minute plea to Mueller concerning his scope of responses, etc

 

government pdf of the FOIA release:

https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/general_topics/robert_mueller_testimony_05_19_20/download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 4:10 PM, notre dame joe said:

You don't see how the National Security Adviser will have to work with the FBI?

You don't see how that's completely irrelevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...