• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

W_Heisenberg said:
This doesn't really matter. The FBI can open and close investigations at will, and the fact there was a draft memo written but not submitted closing the case is meaningless. Even if Flynn's case had been closed, the FBI could have re-opened it. If you close a case or are about to close a case, and new evidence comes to light that changes your previous assessment of the old evidence, you can open the case again. Flynn took $40,000 from the Russian government and sat next to Putin at a banquet in Russia. Given everything going on with Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI should have interviewed Flynn even before the calls with Kislyak. But once the FBI had tapes of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak, and once the FBI discovered that Flynn lied to Pence and other white house officials about the nature of those calls, if there's nothing wrong those calls then why wouldn't Flynn tell pence the truth about? And if there was something to hide why wouldn't the FBI have tried to figure out what Flynn is trying to hide? Had they not questioned Flynn in light of new facts the FBI discovered, it would have been an absolute dereliction of duty, an inexcusable lapse in the broader counterintelligence investigation to not confront Flynn with what they had learned.
Click to expand...

Mr. Comey had signed off upon closing the investigation. The only delay was with administratively, simply properly filing it.
As you point out, the FBI knew what was discussed. As Ms Rice has so helpfully confirmed, Mr. Comey confirmed to the president there was no evidence of any wrongdoing in that conversation.
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
Let's revisit the testimony of both McCabe and Comey:

MR. GOWDY: We!l, if the Director of the FBI said the agenls who spent - just got through interviewing Michael Flynn did not detect deception, that's not the great beginnings of a false statement case to the FBI? lt doesn't mean you can't get there, but thats usually not the great beginning when the two people who interviewed him didn't think he was lying?

MR. MCCABE: That's correct.

MR. GOWDY: So if Director Comey is operating under that information

frorn agents, if the agents who interviewed Mike Flynn did not think he was lying or did not detect deception - I want to be fair about what they said -- did not detect deception -

MR. MCCABE: Right.

MR. GOWDY: -- then what would there have been to obstruct? What was the investigation?

MR. MCCABE: Well, the conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although they didn't detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview, but the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/am33.pdf

Mr. Comey. My recollection is two agents, one of whom was Pete Strzok and the other of whom is a career line agent, not a supervisor.

Mr. Gowdy. Did either of those agents, or both, ever tell you that they did not adduce an intent to deceive from their interview with General Flynn?
Mr. Comey. No.

Mr. Gowdy. Have you ever testified differently?

Mr. Comey. No.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall being asked that question in a HPSCI hearing?

Mr. Comey. No. I recall -- I don't remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.

https://republicans-judiciary.house.../2018/12/Comey-interview-12-7-18_Redacted.pdf'

--

To summarize:

...no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing...

but the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.

That is not the same thing as "the FBI said he didn't lie."

Why is this stuff so hard for you Trump supporters to understand?
Click to expand...

Comey said the FBI agents thought Flynn was truthful.
All you are arguing here is that maybe the FBI saw Flynn as a very good liar.
But then again, they never asked Pence what Flynn had told him (maybe Pence mis-understood what he was told; maybe Pence was lying to the media).
Comey was was asked this and he said that he didn't think asking Pence made any sense. But the reason then it doesn't make sense is because at that point of interviewing Pence, when they are saying there is no problem with the conversation, simply means they operating outside their zone. Whether the NSC director lies to the vice president is of no concern of the FBI as they already know what was said.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Durham Inquiry Includes Scrutiny of a Media Leak - The New York Times

in light of the senate intelligence committee's finding's, i look forward to seeing the durham report, and not just ambiguous references to it
Click to expand...

Thge Senate intelligence committee merely agreed with the conclusion that Russia had sought to interfere with the election.
They were clear that they were making no judgement as to whether Trump and/or his campaign had conspired with Russia in that effort.
That's the real magilla.
The Durham report will be interesting alongside the House Intelligence Committee report, in which numerous members of the Obama DOJ and DNI leadership had testified they saw no evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia.
In light of the House Intelligence Commite
 
Fishking said:
Nope...the judge is neither being pressured by the DOJ or asking the judge to pardon anyone. The DOJ is dropping the case against Flynn, due to recently discovered evidence. The court really plays no roll in thing beyond dropping the charges. Judges don't have the power to pardon, that belongs in the executive branch.
Click to expand...

Actually the Judge can do more than pardon, they can expunge the records of a felon so that their conviction no longer exists. Sullivan is not going to do that for Flynn unless the DOJ can prove to him that he did not lie to the FBI and did not betray his country. The haven't done that and cannot do that.

Judge Gleeson expunges Jane Doe’s conviction: Judges can give criminals a second chance.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually the Judge can do more than pardon, they can expunge the records of a felon so that their conviction no longer exists. Sullivan is not going to do that for Flynn unless the DOJ can prove to him that he did not lie to the FBI and did not betray his country. The haven't done that and cannot do that.

Judge Gleeson expunges Jane Doe’s conviction: Judges can give criminals a second chance.
Click to expand...

That's not a pardon. You're mixing up terms. And Flynn was never charged with betraying his country and it was never even on the table as something valid, because there was no betrayal. He was charged with making a false statement, in which they did not formally tell him he was making official sworn statements, didn't offer him opportunity for counsel, didn't follow proper protocols, went with the intent of entrapping him, he hand already been cleared by a counter intel investigation, and so on.

You really should refrain from speaking on this of which you are so il-informed.
 
Fishking said:
That's not a pardon. You're mixing up terms. And Flynn was never charged with betraying his country and it was never even on the table as something valid, because there was no betrayal. He was charged with making a false statement, in which they did not formally tell him he was making official sworn statements, didn't offer him opportunity for counsel, didn't follow proper protocols, went with the intent of entrapping him, he hand already been cleared by a counter intel investigation, and so on.

You really should refrain from speaking on this of which you are so il-informed.
Click to expand...

i believe it is fair to note that after the admission of guilt, Judge Sullivan acknowledged flynn's betrayal of his country

that is no mis-information, which then causes your post to be found ill-informed
 
Athanasius68 said:
Mr. Comey had signed off upon closing the investigation. The only delay was with administratively, simply properly filing it. As you point out, the FBI knew what was discussed. As Ms Rice has so helpfully confirmed, Mr. Comey confirmed to the president there was no evidence of any wrongdoing in that conversation.
Click to expand...

But then Flynn lied about it. And when Flynn lied that justified keeping the case open. Had the case been closed, it would have been re-opened.

Why?

If there was nothing wrong about the call why didn't Flynn tell Pence the truth? And, if Flynn was trying to hide something, why shouldn't the FBI try to figure out what he was trying to hide?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
But then Flynn lied about it. And when Flynn lied that justified keeping the case open. Had the case been closed, it would have been re-opened.

Why?

If there was nothing wrong about the call why didn't Flynn tell Pence the truth? And, if Flynn was trying to hide something, why shouldn't the FBI try to figure out what he was trying to hide?
Click to expand...

Read the transcripts.
 
jwzg said:
Read the transcripts.
Click to expand...

I read them earlier today. In what way are you confusing about Flynn's attempts to undermine the Obama administration, undermine U.S. national security, and him being caught lying?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
But then Flynn lied about it. And when Flynn lied that justified keeping the case open. Had the case been closed, it would have been re-opened.

Why?

If there was nothing wrong about the call why didn't Flynn tell Pence the truth? And, if Flynn was trying to hide something, why shouldn't the FBI try to figure out what he was trying to hide?
Click to expand...

they are unable to address those questions
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I read it earlier today. In what way are you confusing about Flynn's lies?
Click to expand...

Well, where is the justification for the FBI interview based on these calls? Oh...something about “...get him to lie or get him fired.”

Just because agents swear on testimony doesn’t make it true.

Face it Heisenberg... your boys are going down and there’s nothing you can do to stop it .
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
i believe it is fair to note that after the admission of guilt, Judge Sullivan acknowledged flynn's betrayal of his country

that is no mis-information, which then causes your post to be found ill-informed
Click to expand...

Judge Sullivan apologized for his treason remarks after the prosecution informed him he had the timeline wrong.

Talk about ill-informed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Comey said the FBI agents thought Flynn was truthful.
Click to expand...

You replied to the post. You saw what Comey said. Comey said, "I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing."

Within the context of an investigation an investigator can think someone is lying -- BASED ON THE FACTS -- and also notice that the person did not appear to be lying.

Those are two different things.

All you are arguing here is that maybe the FBI saw Flynn as a very good liar.
Click to expand...

No. The FBI KNEW Flynn was a good liar because the FACTS indicated he lied but that Flynn did not indicate through his body language that he was lying.
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
You replied to the post. You saw what Comey said. Comey said, "I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing."

Within the context of an investigation an investigator can think someone is lying -- BASED ON THE FACTS -- and also notice that the person did not appear to be lying.

Those are two different things.



No. The FBI KNEW Flynn was a good liar because the FACTS indicated he lied but that Flynn did not indicate through his body language that he was lying.
Click to expand...

admire the persistence. they will continue to misrepresent what was said. like with flynn, the truth ain't in them
 
Fishking said:
Uh...you're so ill-informed that you're mixing things up. The 10 days did not come from the DOJ. That came from the appeals court, which was only issued *after* this judge decided he wasn't going to follow the precedent set down by two prior rulings. What you're referencing is pressure of his own creation.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the Appeals Court. The standard response time frame is 30 days. The notion that Barr and his minions had nothing to do with reducing it to 10 is at best a very naive one. This judge does intend to follow precedent. Think you will soon be hearing more about Rule 48a, Rinaldi and Ammidown in the reply to the appeals court.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I was speaking of the Appeals Court. The standard response time frame is 30 days. The notion that Barr and his minions had nothing to do with reducing it to 10 is at best a very naive one. This judge does intend to follow precedent. Think you will soon be hearing more about Rule 48a, Rinaldi and Ammidown in the reply to the appeals court.
Click to expand...

No you weren't. You said it was the DOJ, and it literally wasn't. It was the Appeals Court that has higher standing that Sullivan's appointment, so the DOJ wasn't able to "pressure Sullivan" to do what they wanted but a higher court with a panel of judges is? Oh kay...
 
Fishking said:
No you weren't. You said it was the DOJ, and it literally wasn't. It was the Appeals Court that has higher standing that Sullivan's appointment, so the DOJ wasn't able to "pressure Sullivan" to do what they wanted but a higher court with a panel of judges is? Oh kay...
Click to expand...

You're wrong. As usual. I mentioned the DOJ in relation to the dismissal motion in that post. Not the Appeals Court. Get thee to a remedial reading course. The "Appeals Court that has higher standing that Sullivan's appointment". WTF does that even mean? English please. If you think that there is any part of DOJ/Court system that is out of the reach of an AG like Barr than you're at the least sadly mistaken if not willfully ignorant.
 
jwzg said:
Well, where is the justification for the FBI interview based on these calls?
Click to expand...

Well, in December 2015, Flynn was paid 45,000 by a media organization owned by the Russian government and sat next to Putin, breaking bread with him at a banquet:

flynn2.jpg

Hannity didn't show you this did he? Aren't you upset Hannity has been hiding this from you?

There's the crap about him being an agent of the Turkish government as well.

All these things were suspicious in and of themselves.

Then he tried to undermine U.S. national interests and undermine the Obama administration with his calls with Kislyak.

And he was doing all these strange things within the context of a Russian active measures campaign against the U.S. to interfere in the 2016 election.

And then...he lied about his conversation with Kislyak t to Trump White House officials, including Pence.

So, yeah, that's suspicious,

The FBI would not have been doing its job had it not interviewed Flynn.

Oh...something about “...get him to lie or get him fired.”
Click to expand...

This is what the FBI does with all people they know are likely to lie. It's very common for investigators to have a pre-interview strategy.

And the knew Flynn was likely to lie because he had already lied about this to White House officials. The idea is to try and figure what it is Flynn was trying to hide from White House officials.

And, the strategy is fairly simple, see if he tells the truth, and if he doesn't, hit him with a charge of lying to the FBI to make him fess up to whatever shenanigans he was up to. Flynn is not special. The FBI does this to lots of people, especially those involved in criminal gangs, drug gangs, and the mafia, all the time.

And please, I know you think these crooks, Flynn and Trump, are victims, but you really need to let that go. They aren't victims. They are responsible for their own behavior. If you don't want to get in trouble for lying to the FBI then do NOT lie to the FBI. It's really not that complicated.

Just because agents swear on testimony doesn’t make it true.
Click to expand...

Sure, if the case had gone to trial this is a determination the jury could have made.

But that's not a concern. Why? Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, in open court...under oath.

Face it Heisenberg... your boys are going down and there’s nothing you can do to stop it .
Click to expand...

You will be disappointed. Hannity and Trump have been lying to you.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
admire the persistence. they will continue to misrepresent what was said. like with flynn, the truth ain't in them
Click to expand...

I know. They don't really care about the truth, unfortunately. It's all about protecting their cult leader.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
But then Flynn lied about it. And when Flynn lied that justified keeping the case open. Had the case been closed, it would have been re-opened.

Why?

If there was nothing wrong about the call why didn't Flynn tell Pence the truth? And, if Flynn was trying to hide something, why shouldn't the FBI try to figure out what he was trying to hide?
Click to expand...

They had the transcript. Nothing is being hidden. It confirms what was reported three years ago and what Rice said in that recently redacted memo--- there was no quid pro quo, there was no sending of classified information, there was no suggestion of sending classified information.
There is nothing. No reason for Flynn to be interviewed.
Why lie about it? Its like what has been previously stated--- the agents saw no evidence that he was lying. The man was asked details about an innocuous conversation that had been happened a month earlier and he didn't recall each detail. That's it.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You replied to the post. You saw what Comey said. Comey said, "I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing."

Within the context of an investigation an investigator can think someone is lying -- BASED ON THE FACTS -- and also notice that the person did not appear to be lying.

Those are two different things.



No. The FBI KNEW Flynn was a good liar because the FACTS indicated he lied but that Flynn did not indicate through his body language that he was lying.
Click to expand...

The law for which he was charged requires the accused to "knowingly" misrepresent material information.
They couldn't even say what he said was "knowingly."
It was just an excuse to keep the collapsing Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative alive.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Well, in December 2015, Flynn was paid 45,000 by a media organization owned by the Russian government and sat next to Putin, breaking bread with him at a banquet:

View attachment 67282004

Hannity didn't show you this did he? Aren't you upset Hannity has been hiding this from you?

There's the crap about him being an agent of the Turkish government as well.

All these things were suspicious in and of themselves.

Then he tried to undermine U.S. national interests and undermine the Obama administration with his calls with Kislyak.

And he was doing all these strange things within the context of a Russian active measures campaign against the U.S. to interfere in the 2016 election.

And then...he lied about his conversation with Kislyak t to Trump White House officials, including Pence.

So, yeah, that's suspicious,

The FBI would not have been doing its job had it not interviewed Flynn.



This is what the FBI does with all people they know are likely to lie. It's very common for investigators to have a pre-interview strategy.

And the knew Flynn was likely to lie because he had already lied about this to White House officials. The idea is to try and figure what it is Flynn was trying to hide from White House officials.

And, the strategy is fairly simple, see if he tells the truth, and if he doesn't, hit him with a charge of lying to the FBI to make him fess up to whatever shenanigans he was up to. Flynn is not special. The FBI does this to lots of people, especially those involved in criminal gangs, drug gangs, and the mafia, all the time.

And please, I know you think these crooks, Flynn and Trump, are victims, but you really need to let that go. They aren't victims. They are responsible for their own behavior. If you don't want to get in trouble for lying to the FBI then do NOT lie to the FBI. It's really not that complicated.



Sure, if the case had gone to trial this is a determination the jury could have made.

But that's not a concern. Why? Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, in open court...under oath.



You will be disappointed. Hannity and Trump have been lying to you.
Click to expand...

We already know that Flynn was cleared of being a Russian agent.
That is already settled. All that information about Flynn sitting with Putin was known.
Its over.
The transcript offer NO justification for thinking that Flynn was breaking the law or undermining the Obama Admin foreign policy. Unless you want to claim that the objective of the sanctions were to cause Russia to go ballistic.
 
Athanasius68 said:
They had the transcript. Nothing is being hidden. It confirms what was reported three years ago and what Rice said in that recently redacted memo--- there was no quid pro quo, there was no sending of classified information, there was no suggestion of sending classified information.
Click to expand...

This is a strawman argument. This is not an argument I've been making.

There is nothing. No reason for Flynn to be interviewed.
Click to expand...

Let's recap. Why is Flynn sitting next to Putin at a banquet in Dec 2015 and collecting $45,000 from a media organization owned by the Russian government? Why is Flynn undermining U.S. national security by reducing the impact of Obama's sanctions and diplomat removals by telling the Russian government not to worry about it because the Trump administration will turnaround and treat them more favorably? And Why did Flynn lie about his conversations with Kislyak to Trump White House officials?

Why lie about it? Its like what has been previously stated--- the agents saw no evidence that he was lying.
Click to expand...

OMG! Just because Flynn was a good liar doesn't mean he didn't lie!

The agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace that would indicate to investigators that the person they are interviewing looks like he's lying.

The agents did have the transcript of Flynn's call, and when they compared the transcript to what Flynn said during the interview they could tell Flynn was lying because the things in the transcript were DIFFERENT than the things Flynn said.

It's not that complicated!

I understand why you keep pushing incredibly disingenuous points in an effort to protect Trump. You want to protect Trump, but it's really dumb to suggest that because the agents could not tell he was lying then that means Flynn was not lying.

The man was asked details about an innocuous conversation that had been happened a month earlier and he didn't recall each detail. That's it.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

1. It was not an innocuous conversation. Flynn undermined U.S. national security by telling the Russians not to worry about the punishment Obama was inflicting on the Russian government by interfering in U.S. elections in 2016 because the Trump administration would make things easier for them. That is wrong!

2. I've read the transcript of the calls, and I've read the 302, and I've read Flynn's guilty plea. Flynn clearly lied, and Flynn also did the things that liars do when they get caught lying: stall for time by saying he cannot remember, hem and haw, answer vaguely, etc.

That's why the FBI asked him various versions of the same question. That's why the FBI kept prompting him with information to "jog" his memory. And at each and every part in the interview where Flynn had the opportunity to tell the FBI the truth, he failed. And when confronted with these facts, Flynn decided to plead guilty. Flynn pleaded guilty twice, in open court, and under oath.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The law for which he was charged requires the accused to "knowingly" misrepresent material information. They couldn't even say what he said was "knowingly."
Click to expand...

Look, prosecutors have to prove each element of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, in court, before a jury. Prosecutors have to do this for every suspected criminal for every alleged crime. Yes, it's a hard job and that's why prosecutors are often paid a decent salary. The fact that you the prosecutors would have had a tough time proving this in court changes nothing, nor have you presented any argument as to why that might be the case. Furthermore, and I hate having to repeat this...Flynn PLEADED GUILTY thereby removing the necessity for prosecutors to prove it to a jury. And Flynn pleaded guilty, TWICE, in open court, under oath, before a judge.

It was just an excuse to keep the collapsing Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative alive.
Click to expand...

They were just trying to figure out why the heck Trump and everyone around him were acting so suspiciously as it relates to the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom