beren
Graduate Poster
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
That's not what scepticism is, Bob. You are not the arbiter of true scepticism.
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
Its not a criminal statute, but it is a federal offence.
5 § 2634.201
(b)New entrants.
(1) Within 30 days of assuming a public filer position or office described in § 2634.202 of this subpart, an individual shall file a public financial disclosure report containing the information prescribed in subpart C of this part.
5 § 2634.202 Public filer defined.
The term public filer includes:
(a) The President;
(b) The Vice President;
(c) Each officer or employee in the executive branch, including a special Government employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a), whose position is classified above GS-15 of the General Schedule prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 5332, or the rate of basic pay for which is fixed, other than under the General Schedule, at a rate equal to or greater than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose pay grade is at or in excess of O-7 under 37 U.S.C. 201; and each officer or employee in any other position determined by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal classification;
5 § 2634.105 Definitions.
(j)Income means all income from whatever source derived. It includes but is not limited to the following items: earned income such as compensation for services, fees, commissions, salaries, wages and similar items; gross income derived from business (and net income if the individual elects to include it); gains derived from dealings in property including capital gains; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income from the investment portion of life insurance and endowment contracts; pensions; income from discharge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership income; and income from an interest in an estate or trust. The term includes all income items, regardless of whether they are taxable for Federal income tax purposes, such as interest on municipal bonds. Generally, income means “gross income” as determined in conformity with the Internal Revenue Service principles at 26 CFR 1.61-1 through 1.61-15 and 1.61-21.
Reimbursement means any payment or other thing of value received by the reporting individual (other than gifts, as defined in paragraph (h) of this section) to cover travel-related expenses of such individual, other than those which are:
(1) Provided by the United States Government, the District of Columbia, or a State or local government or political subdivision thereof;
(2) Required to be reported by the reporting individual under 5 U.S.C. 7342 (the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act); or
(3) Required to be reported under section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( 2 U.S.C. 434) (relating to reports of campaign contributions).
Upshot: Flynn was required to include the payments he received from Russian and Turkish sources in his financial disclosure as part of his appointment to a job in the Executive Branch. He did not do so, ergo, he broke the Law.
Pro tip: This may only be a process violation to you, but for mine, members of the Executive Branch should not be breaking the Law at all.
That's not what scepticism is, Bob. You are not the arbiter of true scepticism.
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
Yes, it would be nice to have more data. I see no reason to HIDE NOTHING. Do you?
DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! YOU ARE APPROACHING A BLACK HOLE!
Lost in Space reference. I love it. Sort of dates us though Stacy.
Yes, it would be nice to have more data. I see no reason to HIDE NOTHING. Do you?
Speak for yourself! I'm referencing the current Netflix reboot!
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
(I actually tutored Billy Mumy from the original series when I was in high school.)
Wow! Will Robinson himself. I remember him in a movie where he wrote a letter to Brigitte Bardot. I think Jimmy Stewart played his father.
Dear briggitte
You must be old because you described a film rather than just googling it and naming it.
His attitude is the result of spending most of his life breaking the law.His only knowledge of these types of things come from his “legitimate business” career and his father’s. Both of which were largely Mob-funded.
Sure, Donnie switched from the American Mob to the Russians, but the attitude toward the enforcement of the law remains the same.
It's a good analogy if your opponent is a good chess player. According to popehat the prosecutors are the best.I doubt you have the research to prove that is true. When has there been a formal study on the subject?
Putin is just the frontman. He has apparently wanted out for years now.How much do we know about the 'other' collusionists? The Russians? For instance the motives behind the 2016 campaign hacking.
Vladimir Putin is not untouchable. He could fall.
The reactions are pretty well always the best bits.You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.
No. Defacto, redactions are always meaningful in Federal criminal matters. There is always a reason they are employed.
There are notes from other people and dates than the one you're claiming.Here is the filing
https://www.scribd.com/document/395716348/Flynn-Interview-Documents#from_embed?platform=hootsuite
The second attachment is an interview summary of Peter Strzok, NOT General Flynn.
Oh well, I suggest that folks think long and hard about why people are flat out lying about the attached exhibits.
You need evidence on how often redactions are meaningful.