Mueller Investigation pt4

[smartcooky]

So? The FACT is He was REQUIRED to file as a foreign agent with FARA! He was actually working as a foreign agent for Turkey hiding under the pretense that he was lobbying for some obscure Dutch Corporation.

THIS

Inovo BV was a front company created for the purpose of keeping tabs on Fethullah Gülen. It was used by Flynn as a cover for what he was actually doing... working illegally for the Turkish Government to find a way to get Gülen back to Turkey by any means necessary.

 

[acbytesla]

We are literally at the point where I have to explain to you that Flynn's filing under the Lobbying Disclosure Act DID NOT PERMIT HIM TO ACT FOR OR ON BEHALF OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT!!!

From the document YOU posted which you say supports YOUR CLAIM

"The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed"​

Yes, they are. They are facts that do not support your false claim!

What bothers me about this most is that Flynn knows all this. This is so Oliver North..
I can't help but hear the echo of 'plausible deniability'.

Flynn was attempting to provide cover for himself. 'plausible deniability'. See, I registered as a lobbyist for this Dutch shell corporation. As opposed to registering as a foreign agent for Turkey.

 

[The Big Dog]

One positive thing could come out of the fiasco of the sentencing hearing for Gen. Michael Flynn — a national teaching moment in respect of the meaning of “treason.”

Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz is suggesting that Sullivan’s statements “reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error” if Flynn’s lawyers *appeal Sullivan’s eventual sentence.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed personalisation

 

[smartcooky]

What bothers me about this most is that Flynn knows all this. This is so Oliver North..
I can't help but hear the echo of 'plausible deniability'.

Flynn was attempting to provide cover for himself. 'plausible deniability'. See, I registered as a lobbyist for this Dutch shell corporation. As opposed to registering as a foreign agent for Turkey.

Now that is really funny. You and I must be tuned to the same wavelength.

I was thinking "plausible deniability" after I read your previous post!!!

But its right, the core actions of what Flynn was doing here were in some ways not that different from what Olly North was doing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is more information about today's breaking story about Whitaker:

https://apnews.com/8dc4d14cfcf24193...cs&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter

"Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has been advised by Justice Department ethics officials that he does not need to recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel’s Russia probe.

That’s according to a person familiar with the matter and not authorized to discuss it publicly who spoke to The Associated Press on Thursday on condition of anonymity."

interesting times...

 

[Stacyhs]

So? The FACT is He was REQUIRED to file as a foreign agent with FARA! He was actually working as a foreign agent for Turkey hiding under the pretense that he was lobbying for some obscure Dutch Corporation.

 

[Paul2]

Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz is suggesting that Sullivan’s statements “reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error” if Flynn’s lawyers *appeal Sullivan’s eventual sentence.

Superposter The Big Dog agrees

"Abiding" hardly means one statement, quickly corrected, and a question asked for a non-biased reason.

 

[a_unique_person]

Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz is suggesting that Sullivan’s statements “reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error” if Flynn’s lawyers *appeal Sullivan’s eventual sentence.

Superposter The Big Dog agrees

IOW Flynn is guilty as charged and has escaped a lot more charges due to the plea deal. At best he will get the sentence the prosecution asked for in the first place.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hoo boy, now it appears the original source on the Whittaker news has walked back part of his claim:

"A senior Justice Department ethics official concluded acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker should recuse from overseeing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe examining President Trump, but advisers to Whitaker recommended the opposite and he has no plans to step aside, according to people familiar with the matter."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49d0f6e77590

Looks like they said it was a senior ethics official told the group of advisers on Tuesday that it was a “close call,” but Whitaker should recuse to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the official said.

Whitaker appears to agree with his advisers and will assume supervision over the project.

 

[acbytesla]

Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz is suggesting that Sullivan’s statements “reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error” if Flynn’s lawyers *appeal Sullivan’s eventual sentence.

Superposter The Big Dog agrees

"Abiding" hardly means one statement, quickly corrected, and a question asked for a non-biased reason.

I'd really like to know what makes Dershowitz a "superlawyer"?

Dershowitz would say ABSOLUTELY anything to get on TV. I remember him making grotesquely ignorant remarks about Amanda Knox. What Dershowitz has proved over the years is he is most interested in self promotion and money.

That Dershowitz is saying that Sullivan's statements might well result in reversible error if Flynn's lawyers 'appeal is kind of like me saying that if I was wealthy and handsome I might be able to have a threesome with Anna Kendrick and Emma Stone. There is really no danger of either happening. So Dershowitz is appealing to his FOX News constituents, not actually talking about reality.

The word 'might' is like the words 'up to' in an advertisement. It's a gap so wide you can run a train through it.

The only way Flynn's lawyers are going to appeal is if the judge ignores both the sentencing recommendations, and the sentencing guidelines which Sullivan can do. Flynn could be sentenced to as much as 60 months which is the maximum penalty for lying to the FBI.

So I can see why Flynn accepted delaying sentencing.

 

[Trebuchet]

Alan Dershowitz is Lying to You.

 

[LSSBB]

Alan Dershowitz is Lying to You.

Good link. It also has case law references for Trumpists to ignore and hope to go away.

 

[The Big Dog]

Alan Dershowitz is Lying to You.

I like Popehat, but man does that article suck.

It is premised on the following strawman:

"But someone reading Dershowitz's column could be forgiven for thinking that's what the law is — or, at least, that the law is unsettled on the point. The essay utterly fails to divulge that every court to consider the argument has rejected it."

It is a total straw man, hoo boy. He does not claim that Alan said it, he says that people might think he is saying that is what the law is. That is silly. here is what Alan is saying:

FBI agents and prosecutors should not deliberately provide citizens the opportunity to commit federal crimes in order to turn them into government witnesses.

When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability. Even noble ends do not justify ignoble means, and some of the means used by the special counsel have, indeed, been ignoble.

he is not stating that is the law, he is stating what it should be and what the FBI should do.

But someone reading Popehat's 's column could be forgiven for thinking that's what Alan said — or, at least, that the article is unsettled on the point. The essay utterly fails to divulge that Alan made no such claim at all which is grounds enough to reject it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I like Popehat, but man does that article suck.

It is premised on the following strawman:

"But someone reading Dershowitz's column could be forgiven for thinking that's what the law is — or, at least, that the law is unsettled on the point. The essay utterly fails to divulge that every court to consider the argument has rejected it."

It is a total straw man, hoo boy. He does not claim that Alan said it, he says that people might think he is saying that is what the law is. That is silly. here is what Alan is saying:





he is not stating that is the law, he is stating what it should be and what the FBI should do.

But someone reading Popehat's 's column could be forgiven for thinking that's what Alan said — or, at least, that the article is unsettled on the point. The essay utterly fails to divulge that Alan made no such claim at all which is grounds enough to reject it.

Curious you left out Dersh's quote on Fox News:

“I hope the judge understands when he has the case tomorrow that Flynn did not commit a crime by lying,” Dershowitz told Fox News host Bill Hemmer. “Because the lie has to be material to the investigation. And if the FBI already knew the answer to the question and only asked him the question in order to give him an opportunity to lie, his answer — even if false — was not material to the investigation.”

That seems pretty clear to me that he is stating that lying to the FBI isn't a crime if it doesn't mislead the FBI, which is not the way the courts see things and Alan must certainly know that. Popehat's point that Dershowitz conflates his personal opinion with the actual law seems pretty valid. Calling him a liar seems appropriate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Curious you left out Dersh's quote on Fox News:



That seems pretty clear to me that he is stating that lying to the FBI isn't a crime if it doesn't mislead the FBI, which is not the way the courts see things and Alan must certainly know that. Popehat's point that Dershowitz conflates his personal opinion with the actual law seems pretty valid. Calling him a liar seems appropriate.

Not curious that you ignored this in popehat's article:

"Legal analysis on TV is tough; there's very little time to make a complicated point. But Dershowitz has promoted the same point explicitly in writing:"

As I just showed Alan absolutely did make the point that Popehat is hanging on him.

Further, here is another article that drives home the point that he is not saying what the law, he is advocating what the law should be

I will not be cowed by these partisan critics. I will continue to make the civil libertarian argument that the government should not be testing the morality of its citizens by asking questions to which it already knows the answer and has irrefutable evidence.

Today, that tactic is being used against Michael Flynn. Tomorrow, it might be used against you or a member of your family. Think hard about whether this is a law enforcement tactic that should be encouraged.

What is amazing? that is a point that popehat, TBD and Alan D. all agree!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...ement-conduct-morality-tests-on-americans?amp

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not curious that you ignored this in popehat's article:

"Legal analysis on TV is tough; there's very little time to make a complicated point. But Dershowitz has promoted the same point explicitly in writing:"

As I just showed Alan absolutely did make the point that Popehat is hanging on him.

The context is important. Dershowitz is no fool, and his omission on Fox News, which is pretty much running the story of "Flynn got entrapped and what he did wasn't criminal" nonstop, was no accident. He had to have known that what he was saying was going to increase that misconception.

The conflation and confusion is deliberate. Either he is lying, or he is extremely careless in his role as "legal expert". Either way, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[LSSBB]

The context is important. Dershowitz is no fool, and his omission on Fox News, which is pretty much running the story of "Flynn got entrapped and what he did wasn't criminal" nonstop, was no accident. He had to have known that what he was saying was going to increase that misconception.

The conflation and confusion is deliberate. Either he is lying, or he is extremely careless in his role as "legal expert". Either way, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

This.

 

[The Big Dog]

The context is important. Dershowitz is no fool, and his omission on Fox News, which is pretty much running the story of "Flynn got entrapped and what he did wasn't criminal" nonstop, was no accident. He had to have known that what he was saying was going to increase that misconception.

The conflation and confusion is deliberate. Either he is lying, or he is extremely careless in his role as "legal expert". Either way, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

There is no misconception, and if there was, Alan D just published another piece that makes it clear.

Listen, if you want to say that Alan said something on TV that sounded dumb and was wrong, guilty as charged.

 

[LSSBB]

"Skepticism" isn't blindly accepting someone on TV or the Internet's legal advice just because he says stuff that favors your side.

Skepticism" isn't blindly accepting your own "legal beagle" intuition either. Apply skepticism to yourself and your own side.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The conflation and confusion is deliberate. Either he is lying, or he is extremely careless in his role as "legal expert". Either way, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'd like to reference a conversation I brought up previously where Dershowitz plays dumb when the facts are presented, and even goes so far as to accuse his interlocutor of antisemitism when his back is to the wall.

Unless Dershowitz has suffered a head injury of some kind, then he knows exactly what he's doing. He is lying to us.