Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Check it out, y'all I can do it too: "Rule of So." I'm a critical thinker now!

We're nearly 40 pages into a thread to discuss an investigation that is not yet completed. Why so much virtual ink on this particular topic?

Well, someone acting completely like a truly-innocent-person is using the highest bully pulpit on Earth to daily broadcast disparaging misinformation about the man in charge of the investigation. Why? Well, this person who I'll call Individual 1, is upset that the investigation has uncovered some rather shady dealings among multiple people within Individual 1's immediate and extended sphere of business associates. Rather than address the charges on their own merit, Individual 1 has declared the entire investigation a hatchet job sponsored by his enemies among the political elite. Those enemies have managed to fully corrupt a lifelong Republican who's led an exemplary career in public service and is now a secret leftist Democrat hell-bent on destroying the otherwise spotless reputation of Individual 1 and his brilliant, gorgeous daughter who's got a body that doesn't quit, silky-smooth skin that glows when touched, a m--- Oh, sorry, got distracted for a minute.

Anyway, yeah. Mueller is a partisan hack and Individual 1 wants him to go away so we can back to all the #winning, distraction-free. There's no time to wait for this highly successful investigation to conclude because we're taking it in the shorts from the Chinese, the Russians want more concessions from us, and there are Guatemalan toddlers on the border with grenade launchers that can fire missiles all the way to Des Moines!
 
Trump is playing poker with the budget

Delete. Wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
Oh for Pete's sake, the Flynn court does not show motions for leave to file under seal on their court docket.

Poor form! Very poor form!
 
thaiboxerken said:
That strategy would work, if they weren't part of the conspiracy. I suspect many Republicans were paid or helped by Russia. Trumpanzees, the fans of Trump, don't care if Russia helped or if Trump broke the law because they know Trump makes "libtards" upset.
Click to expand...

Well... to poke at this a little, there's this little organization called the NRA that might play into that side of things. And then there's been some suggestions that Russian influence and hacking campaigns were likely successful at finding blackmail material on the GOP well beyond expectations, using the NRA and the RNC as a starting point.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
GIULIANI, today: Trump paid Stormy Daniels because he "was very concerned about how this was going to affect his marriage"

GIULIANI, 5/3/18: "Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Clinton…Cohen made it go away. He did his job"
Click to expand...
That's because it did BOTH; provided benefit to Trump's personal/private/public (For most of his life he has had a presence in the public sphere), as well as influenced the campaign.

For that reason the Stormy transaction was irrespective to the campaign effort and thus not regulated as campaign finance according to law.
 
A business partner of Flynn's has been charged with conspiracy and acting as an agent of the Turkish government

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1074696341627068417

DOJ's press release on the charges: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-men-charged-conspiracy-and-acting-agents-foreign-government …

I strikes me as seriously weird, even w Flynn's cooperation, to throw so many counts at the business partners of the former National Security Advisor and leave him as an unindicted co-conspirator facing no jail time.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1074703851335254017

Yeah, this is extremely strong evidence for the proposition that Flynn got a great deal via what he was charged with.

Hooray vast unchecked prosecutorial discretion!
Click to expand...

So there we go - "extremely strong evidence" that Mueller has chosen not to prosecute Flynn for everything he could prosecute him for as part of a deal for the "substantial assistance" Flynn has provided Mueller.
 
In reference to the earlier conversation about whether Flynn actually lied about something material, according to the law:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1074696017063202816

Here's @AlanDersh making an argument about how the law SHOULD be, but concealing it as an argument about what the law IS.

(I agree with tightening the materiality standard for Section 1001. I don't agree with going on TV and lying about it.)
Click to expand...

Article embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1074738519606734850

Lying to the FBI is only a crime if the lie was “material”. If the FBI already knew the answer to the question— if they have tapes— and ask it only to elicit a lie, should that lie be deemed material?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1074742341418668032

Professor, you know perfectly well that courts have repeatedly answered this question, even if we may think they got it wrong.

Why are you promoting ignorance about the law?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1074742698677030912

Like many of Dershowitz's recent statements, this appears to be a deliberate effort to mislead the public.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1074747560865267714

Shame on @renato_mariotti for deliberately distorting my point. I said that lying to the FBI is not a crime unless the lie is material. That is the law. Does Mariotti disagree? Or does he want to change the law and apply it ex post facto to Flynn?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1074760508731994113

There is no question lying to the FBI is only a crime if the lie is material. There is also no question that federal courts have held that the type of lie told by Flynn is material. Your earlier tweet suggested otherwise, and unless you're incompetent, you knew it was misleading.
Click to expand...

So the question is whether you believe Dershowitz, who says that Flynn did not commit a crime, or Popehat & Mariotti, who say it was and that anybody who thinks otherwise is either ignorant, deliberately trying to mislead people, or incompetent about matters of law.
 
ServiceSoon said:
That's because it did BOTH; provided benefit to Trump's personal/private/public (For most of his life he has had a presence in the public sphere), as well as influenced the campaign.

For that reason the Stormy transaction was irrespective to the campaign effort and thus not regulated as campaign finance according to law.
Click to expand...

This is just pretzel logic!

Did the Trump campaign benefit from the payments?

If the answer to this question is "yes" then that is a campaign law violation, a criminal offence, regardless of whether there were other reasons for him making the payment. You can't claim that you didn't break the law because you had other reasons for doing what you did - e.g. if you break into someone's house to recover your own property, you still broke the law by breaking and entering, and you can still be prosecuted for that.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Oh for Pete's sake, the Flynn court does not show motions for leave to file under seal on their court docket.

Poor form! Very poor form!
Click to expand...

MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. On December 12, 2018, the Court ordered the government to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum." The government responded to the Court's Order under seal. Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. As such, and in view of the strong public presumption in favor of public access to judicial records, see, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."), the Court FORTHWITH ORDERS the government to file its proposed redacted version of the January 24, 2017 FD-302 on the public docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/17/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
 
I just want to know how General Flynn can transform himself from highly respected Military Officer to Giant Turd willing to sell out to the highest bidder? I'm glad that he is cooperating with Mueller. That certainly goes toward making some amends. But that doesn't change the things he did. He was being paid 15 million dollars if he could find a way to extradite a man who has lived in the United States to Turkey without evidence of committing a crime.
 
The Big Dog said:
MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. On December 12, 2018, the Court ordered the government to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum." The government responded to the Court's Order under seal. Having reviewed the government's submissions, the Court finds that the January 24, 2017 FD-302, which was drafted immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview, is relevant to Mr. Flynn's sentencing. The Court also finds that the government's proposed redactions to that document are appropriate. As such, and in view of the strong public presumption in favor of public access to judicial records, see, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."), the Court FORTHWITH ORDERS the government to file its proposed redacted version of the January 24, 2017 FD-302 on the public docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/17/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you said the judge was gonna come down hard on the prosecution for not providing what he asked for?
 
WilliamSeger said:
Wait, I thought you said the judge was gonna come down hard on the prosecution for not providing what he asked for?
Click to expand...

Beelzebuddy said:
The judge did, look, he said FORTHWITH. You don't get a with like that unless you forth it.
Click to expand...

So, did TBD even read what he posted? The judge basically said yes, that's what I was looking for and the redactions are appropriate, go ahead and formally release it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom