• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoahFence said:
What?
It means he was charged with the crimes in basket B before basket A.
Because basket A is just bigger and takes longer to get through. It's not really confusing.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about the police here who exercise a policy of not saying someone is guilty before charging someone. We are talking about congressmen and their constituents. By saying person X you will charge with crime Y when the evidence of that is final uncovered, you have declared the rules you are taking a principled stand on.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Are we really back to people pretending not to know how a plea deal works?
Click to expand...

Hmm? What? They've been trying to deny that there was a plea deal in the first place the entire time. Why? Feel free to ask them what the excuse of the week is. Or bear with the more usual deafening silence as they don't even try to explain their denial of the evidence available.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
My favorite part about people defending trump is when the defender pretends like getting charged with other serious crimes somehow exonerates them from others crimes just because they haven't been charged yet.

The dumbest **** I read on the internet is when people say, "He wasn't even charged with crimes related to the investigation." Who cares? He was charged with a crime.
Click to expand...

It's important that if you are claiming that a crime has been committed, you do not cite another, unrelated crime as evidence of your claim. Did Flynn conspire with the Russians to manipulate elections? Maybe, maybe not. Is Flynn's conviction for a process crime arising from the investigation itself evidence of that conspiracy? Absolutely not. Was SG wrong to cite Flynn's conviction as evidence of the conspiracy? Of course. Do woos frequently produce citations that don't support their arguments? Yes, almost every time, and it's always hilarious.

And this is the state of the Russian collusion narrative. You believe there was collusion. You believe I should be shamed or shouted down for daring to question that belief. And your best evidence - your very best, most skeptical, rational evidence - is what? That after the election, a representative of the incoming administration met with foreign officials to discuss matters of foreign policy, as is customary, reasonable, and legal. And that there is no evidence that anything untoward was discussed or agreed at these meetings. And that for whatever reason, the administration representative lied about the meeting to investigators, probably because he's an idiot, and probably also because he got bad legal advice. That's your best evidence. That's what you want so badly for me to accept, as evidence of the conspiracy you believe in.

And believe is the right word. This conspiracy theory is a religion for you. Mueller is your prophet, and CNN is your holy scripture. Anyone who dissents is a heretic or an infidel.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Are we really back to people pretending not to know how a plea deal works?
Click to expand...

I think some of us are waiting for evidence that these particular plea deals are working the the way others of us believe they're working.

Side note: Brazilian jurisprudence has a similar concept, delação premiada. It's typically translated as "plea bargain", but it is markedly different in one important aspect.

In an American plea bargain, the accused is pleading guilty to a lesser crime, in exchange for leniency from the prosecutor and the court. Often, some form of incriminating testimony against other accused is included in the deal.

The Brazilian "rewarded denunciation", on the other hand, is based on the accused confessing to the crime itself, not some lesser crime. The leniency of the courts is premised on the accused being honest about their criminal activity. The reward they get depends on the transparency of their confession and the value of the evidence they give against their co-conspirators.

If Flynn had agreed to such a Brazilian "plea bargain", that would indeed be evidence of the conspiracy, since he would literally be confessing to the conspiracy, and supplying evidence of it as part of the bargain.

But the American "plea bargain" (if such it is), is at this point evidence of nothing more than the lesser crime to which he has actually confessed. Whether this bargain includes evidence of the conspiracy you believe in, and even whether Flynn has such evidence in the first place, remains to be seen. Citing his process crime as evidence of the conspiracy is pure woo.
 
theprestige said:
It's important that if you are claiming that a crime has been committed, you do not cite another, unrelated crime as evidence of your claim. Did Flynn conspire with the Russians to manipulate elections? Maybe, maybe not. Is Flynn's conviction for a process crime arising from the investigation itself evidence of that conspiracy? Absolutely not. Was SG wrong to cite Flynn's conviction as evidence of the conspiracy? Of course. Do woos frequently produce citations that don't support their arguments? Yes, almost every time, and it's always hilarious.

And this is the state of the Russian collusion narrative. You believe there was collusion. You believe I should be shamed or shouted down for daring to question that belief. And your best evidence - your very best, most skeptical, rational evidence - is what? That after the election, a representative of the incoming administration met with foreign officials to discuss matters of foreign policy, as is customary, reasonable, and legal. And that there is no evidence that anything untoward was discussed or agreed at these meetings. And that for whatever reason, the administration representative lied about the meeting to investigators, probably because he's an idiot, and probably also because he got bad legal advice. That's your best evidence. That's what you want so badly for me to accept, as evidence of the conspiracy you believe in.

And believe is the right word. This conspiracy theory is a religion for you. Mueller is your prophet, and CNN is your holy scripture. Anyone who dissents is a heretic or an infidel.
Click to expand...

It's fun to watch when the mask of "rational and objective observer" slips away and an incoherent, fact-challenged defense of Trump is revealed.

Especially when it happens in the space of a single post.
 
johnny karate said:
It's fun to watch when the mask of "rational and objective observer" slips away and an incoherent, fact-challenged defense of Trump is revealed.

Especially when it happens in the space of a single post.
Click to expand...

If you have better evidence of conspiracy than Flynn's "plea bargain", then bring it. This was the best SG could come up with, and it seems like everyone's willing to defend it as such. But by all means if you have something better let's see it.
 
I've said it before, Flynn ought to rescind the pleas deal for "lying" to the the FBI, unless and until the FBI and Strzok in particular can show that they did not doctor the 302's
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You seem to have missed some details, like why Flynn and the others lied:
Click to expand...

I didn't miss anything. Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I said.

As part of the transition, Flynn's discussions were well within the bounds of his job duties. Sanctions are a legitimate topic of discussion between government officials and soon-to-be government officials.

Zwaan's crimes have nothing to do with the campaign.

And you have a reason why Manafort was investigated, but nothing to indicate any actual collusion in regard to the campaign.

So... still a fail. You don't have what you claimed you had.
 
Peter Strzok: I volunteer to talk to Congress!
Peter Strzok: I can't answer these Questions.

Rosenstein said during a line of questioning with Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Rosenstein said if Mueller “were to rely upon a document that Mr. Strzok produced, or a statement that he took, or to call him as a witness,” he “obviously he would need to consider…evidence that would tend to impeach his credibility.”

Let Flynn go!
 
theprestige said:
I think some of us are waiting for evidence that these particular plea deals are working the the way others of us believe they're working.

Side note: Brazilian jurisprudence has a similar concept, delação premiada. It's typically translated as "plea bargain", but it is markedly different in one important aspect.

In an American plea bargain, the accused is pleading guilty to a lesser crime, in exchange for leniency from the prosecutor and the court. Often, some form of incriminating testimony against other accused is included in the deal.

The Brazilian "rewarded denunciation", on the other hand, is based on the accused confessing to the crime itself, not some lesser crime. The leniency of the courts is premised on the accused being honest about their criminal activity. The reward they get depends on the transparency of their confession and the value of the evidence they give against their co-conspirators.

If Flynn had agreed to such a Brazilian "plea bargain", that would indeed be evidence of the conspiracy, since he would literally be confessing to the conspiracy, and supplying evidence of it as part of the bargain.

But the American "plea bargain" (if such it is), is at this point evidence of nothing more than the lesser crime to which he has actually confessed. Whether this bargain includes evidence of the conspiracy you believe in, and even whether Flynn has such evidence in the first place, remains to be seen. Citing his process crime as evidence of the conspiracy is pure woo.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but not relevant to the post you quoted.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That's nice, but not relevant to the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

The first sentence puts the lie to your canard that this is about not knowing how plea deals work.

The rest is a sidebar about how similar kinds of arrangements between prosecutor and defendant work in different jurisdictions, and how the details of their working may carry more or less information about what alleged crimes were actually committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom