Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
The Big Dog said:
My position is of course clear and consistent.
Click to expand...

Indeed, "defend conservatism and its Republican proponents at all costs."
Click to expand...


I'n not sure if what TBD defends can accurately be called "conservatism", although it does seem to be what conservatism has been becoming.

There's no doubt, though, that he will defend just about any Republican at all costs.

...

... as long as they remain slavishly loyal to his Dear Leader Trump, of course.
 
The very idea Flynn should have been warned that lying to the FBI would put him in legal jeopardy is utterly preposterous. A General, a 33 year veteran of the armed forces does not need to be warned about the criminality of lying to Federal investigators.

Lieutenant-General Mark Hertling (US Army Retd) puts it best...
"As a former Lieutenant General, I can attest that one learns not to lie to the FBI much earlier in one's career, and at a much lower rank"​
Also there is this to consider. Flynn's lies to the FBI were not the first time he had lied about his phone conversations about sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He had already lied about those phone calls, both publicly, and to Mike Pence and other WH officials. The FBI already knew he had lied when they interviewed him, because they already knew about the phone calls! The FBI agents gave Flynn the opportunity to come clean and walk back those earlier statements - instead, Flynn chose to double down on his lies.
 
smartcooky said:
The very idea Flynn should have been warned that lying to the FBI would put him in legal jeopardy is utterly preposterous. A General, a 33 year veteran of the armed forces does not need to be warned about the criminality of lying to Federal investigators.
Click to expand...

He's not just a general, he was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And he didn't know that lying to federal investigators was a crime? I know it's a crime, and I'm not even American, let alone the head of an American intelligence agency.

Seriously, if the best defence of him is that he's so utterly incompetent that he shouldn't have had the job he had, then that doesn't say a lot good about either him or America.
 
The Big Dog said:
"Strzok and [the other agent] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying."

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1073673438928134144
Click to expand...

Except that as has been pointed out, that was a selective quote, and the actual testimony (as opposed to the Republican spin) was


"that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true.” “They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.”

 
It’s remarkable to hear that anyone is trying to defend Flynn’s lying to law enforcement in coverup of activities ranging from the unethical to the illegal to the treasonous. I would have gone to jail for about six hundred years if I’d pulled half the crap he did, but I’m not a retired General with a lot of juicy information on the Trump gang to exchange.

I haven’t noted much about this in the larger news world; is it really a thing outside of Trump trolls and Q crackpots?
 
sts60 said:
It’s remarkable to hear that anyone is trying to defend Flynn’s lying to law enforcement in coverup of activities ranging from the unethical to the illegal to the treasonous. I would have gone to jail for about six hundred years if I’d pulled half the crap he did, but I’m not a retired General with a lot of juicy information on the Trump gang to exchange.

I haven’t noted much about this in the larger news world; is it really a thing outside of Trumpntrills and Q crackpots?
Click to expand...

Popehat defended him in the sense of what he did shouldn't be illegal. Popehat is not pro Trump.
 
smartcooky said:
The very idea Flynn should have been warned that lying to the FBI would put him in legal jeopardy is utterly preposterous. A General, a 33 year veteran of the armed forces does not need to be warned about the criminality of lying to Federal investigators.
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He's not just a general, he was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And he didn't know that lying to federal investigators was a crime? I know it's a crime, and I'm not even American, let alone the head of an American intelligence agency.
Click to expand...


I agree, in principle.

But at the Police Academy we were taught to always read Miranda from a card prior to interrogation. Case law was presented where the police said Miranda was not necessary in a case where the subject was in law school and should have been aware of his rights without being warned. The court ruled the results of the interrogation inadmissible. The ruling stated that even if it could be determined that a certain subject should have known their rights, the stress of a police encounter could be enough that they forget those rights and need to be reminded.
 
Last edited:
The stress of an FBI encounter could be enough that even the former head of a federal intelligence agency might forget his Miranda rights? It would seem to me that the stress of an FBI encounter would make the former head of a federal intelligence agency acutely aware of his legal rights.

But isn't Miranda only required when police question someone AFTER that person has been arrested?
 
newyorkguy said:
The stress of an FBI encounter could be enough that even the former head of a federal intelligence agency might forget his Miranda rights? It would seem to me that the stress of an FBI encounter would make the former head of a federal intelligence agency acutely aware of his legal rights.
Click to expand...

Not saying I don't agree, just putting case law out there.

But isn't Miranda only required when police question someone AFTER that person has been arrested?
Click to expand...

Mostly, but it gets complicated, and depends on what the definition of "arrest" is:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I agree, in principle.

But at the Police Academy we were taught to always read Miranda from a card prior to interrogation. Case law was presented where the police said Miranda was not necessary in a case where the subject was in law school and should have been aware of his rights without being warned. The court ruled the results of the interrogation inadmissible. The ruling stated that even if it could be determined that a certain subject should have known their rights, the stress of a police encounter could be enough that they forget those rights and need to be reminded.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right for Miranda, but there is no rule or law that says the FBI have to warn you that lying to them is a crime, according to a former federal prosecutor I heard on MSNBC.
 
I agree that not Mirandizing someone in custody following their arrest because they're a law student, or a Supreme Court judge for that matter, and know their rights is asking for trouble. It's understandable that could happen so having the training cover that is a pretty good idea. Most police officers don't have law degrees. (Some do.)

The link provided to show the complications of Miranda; I don't see many complications, it seems fairly clear and straightforward. From the link:
The Miranda warning (from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision), requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you...If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear that Michael Flynn was not in "custody" during his FBI interview and thus the agents had no need to read him his Miranda rights.

On Friday Mueller countered some of the claims Michael Flynn has been making:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Friday criticized President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, for suggesting that the FBI duped him into lying about his contact with the Russian ambassador. “Nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI on Jan. 24,” Mueller wrote in a court filing Friday, asking a federal judge to reject Flynn’s attempt to “minimize” the seriousness of his lies. “The defendant chose to make false statements about his communications with the Russian ambassador weeks before the FBI interview, when he lied about that topic to the media, the incoming Vice President, and other members of the Presidential Transition Team,” Mueller wrote. Link
Click to expand...
 
I've been interviewed a few times by the NSA re security clearances for friends. No one ever read Miranda rights or warned me that lying was illegal.

I was not a suspect or anything, and wasn't treated as such. Flynn didn't become a suspected criminal until the feds realized he lied to them.

Then he admitted he lied, and pled guilty to the crime.

But all these legal geniuses debate whether he committed a crime? They think he and his lawyers are stupid?
 
Rubs temples.

As I have explained Mueller did not attach the 302 OF FLYNN’S INTERVIEW.

Instead and in violation of the Judge’s order, he attached a 302 of an interview with Strzok.

A 302 of a Strzok interview. I do not think I could have explained this anymore clearly yesterday, yet I wake up this morning and find posts falsely claiming that they did so and that the unlodged 302 are a matter of record or some next level nonsense.

Just astonished sometimes at the grossly uninformed arguments I have to deal with on a daily basis.
 
sts60 said:
It’s remarkable to hear that anyone is trying to defend Flynn’s lying to law enforcement in coverup of activities ranging from the unethical to the illegal to the treasonous. I would have gone to jail for about six hundred years if I’d pulled half the crap he did, but I’m not a retired General with a lot of juicy information on the Trump gang to exchange.

I haven’t noted much about this in the larger news world; is it really a thing outside of Trump trolls and Q crackpots?
Click to expand...

Would Fox News count? And yeah, to verify, I just googled "flynn fox" and a bunch of headlines along those lines popped up at the top.

But then, it's not like we didn't know that Fox is so full of **** anyways. It's just that they are a notable part of the larger news world.
 
as I explained yesterday, Mueller violated the Judge's order.

None of the responses to my legally correct post which was supported by actual links to the evidence mentioned that fact.

Oh well.

Yours sincerly

Actual legal Beagle TBD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom