U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

I do not consider this to be an accurate assessment of the Steele dossier. I will revisit this post later.

Sure you will, its how a defense attorney will shred the **** out of its reliability to actual facts---you know things that can be proven. In a court you only get to use what you can prove. Its second and third party communications, funded by political opposition and originating in part, in Russia.

Stone cold reliable, amirite?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't care. You don't have to say anything about the First Amendment. I'm just pointing out that that there isn't any reason why Flynn, or anyone else in the Trump team, couldn't have just publicly said that it is their hope that Russia doesn't retaliate and that they vote no on a US sponsored UN resolution. They have the right to their opinions. Other than perhaps it might appear a bit unseemly from a political and public relations standpoint. But since when has that ever stopped them? And no, the notion there would be exception from a time frame point of view as to when a corrupt agreement is finally consummated and frankly a silly and stupid one. If you were a private citizen, or not an authorized representative, or not a government official, when you initiated a corrupt agreement contrary to the foreign policy goals and interests of the United States with a foreign power that was engaged in a dispute with the United States, then you have violated the Act. Period.

So now you are resorting to a hypothetical that didn't happen to make your point true. Ok then, I guess you are done.

 

[Rawley]

1. Why do you think it's important that Steele's dossier may have contained Russian disinformation?

No big deal. Just becasue if there was no Steele dossier, there would have been no Muller investigation. But you loooooved the Mueller investigation right?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Mishandling of 302s, affairs in office, using office communications to make record of bias to a coworker not read into all his cases, yeah he's credible as ****. Are you kidding me with this ****? Robert Litt was in the Obama administration so grain of salt on his pronouncements of who he finds credible. FYI that story is a year old---a lot has changed.

LOL! Which would make it a full year younger than the story you cited to me. You're a real piece of work.

 

[Rawley]

I don't care. You don't have to say anything about the First Amendment. I'm just pointing out that that there isn't any reason why Flynn, or anyone else in the Trump team, couldn't have just publicly said that it is their hope that Russia doesn't retaliate and that they vote no on a US sponsored UN resolution. They have the right to their opinions. Other than perhaps it might appear a bit unseemly from a political and public relations standpoint. But since when has that ever stopped them? And no, the notion there would be exception from a time frame point of view as to when a corrupt agreement is finally consummated and frankly a silly and stupid one. If you were a private citizen, or not an authorized representative, or not a government official, when you initiated a corrupt agreement contrary to the foreign policy goals and interests of the United States with a foreign power that was engaged in a dispute with the United States, then you have violated the Act. Period.

Are you arguing the Logan act? Seriously?

 

[Atomic Kid]

So now you are resorting to a hypothetical that didn't happen to make your point true. Ok then, I guess you are done.

How do you know it didn't? Have seen the transcripts or listened to the calls?

 

[OpportunityCost]

How do you know it didn't? Have seen the transcripts or listened to the calls?

LOL apparently the FBI did. Didn't happen or he would have been prosecuted for it or it would have been leaked.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Are you arguing the Logan act? Seriously?

No genius, we are talking about when and how it applies even though it's moot point where Flynn is concerned now because he committed a felony when he lied to those federal agents. But yes he conceivably could have violated that act too.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

LOL! Which would make it a full year younger than the story you cited to me. You're a real piece of work.

That makes one of us, you don't do any work on your sources.

 

[Rawley]

No genius, we are talking about when and how it applies even though it's moot point where Flynn is concerned now because he committed a felony when he lied to those federal agents. But yes he conceivably could have violated that act too.

It doesn't apply genius. It's been unsuccessfully tried twice, and not attempted in 170 years.

 

[Atomic Kid]

LOL apparently the FBI did. Didn't happen or he would have been prosecuted for it or it would have been leaked.

Yes they have, as had a former acting attorney general and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice and a former Acting US Attorney United States Deputy Attorney General. All of which expressed their concerns about the calls and you can bet that if there were anything exculpatory in those call transcripts Barr and Grinell would have released them by now. And Flynn has been prosecuted with a deal in place not to be prosecuted for the other criminal acts he had committed.

 

[Atomic Kid]

It doesn't apply genius. It's been unsuccessfully tried twice, and not attempted in 170 years.

There's always a first but the felony charge was much better to work with as leverage for Flynn's cooperation for the special counsel as that carried a more severe sentence and could be easily proved.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

That makes one of us, you don't do any work on your sources.

You don't remember posting this link to me?

Yes Russian agents can mean any number of things, and that was exactly my point---frequently Russian embassy personnel are intelligence operatives, criminals or straight up who they say they are. Its part of dealing with Russia at all.

Crossfire Hurricane was completely legit except for the multiple errors, the hiding of the status of Gates, the arrest of Papadopoulos on a rumor that was repeated, the firing of McCabe, Strzok, Comey and on and on. There are so many bad faith actions its beyond retarded to call it free of bias.

As for Flynn and altering the 302s: Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell



Part of why 302s are valid as evidence is they are fresh recollections and notes being made at the time. Seven months later doesn't even come close.

Click on it and check out the date.

 

[hanger4]

Then why did he lie about them by denying that sanctions were discussed? Doesn't being a liar to the FBI about discussions with an adversary make Flynn a security risk?

We know the 302 was rewritten by Strzok, the possibility that Flynn lied is in question.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No big deal. Just becasue if there was no Steele dossier, there would have been no Muller investigation. But you loooooved the Mueller investigation right?

Crossfire Hurricane began when Papdapopolous bragged to Australia's High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer, about learning about the Russian government having access to Clinton's emails

Mifsud traveled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return he told Papadopoulos that Russian government officials were in possession of "thousands of emails" that could be politically damaging to Hillary Clinton.[15][16] On May 6, Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to Britain in a London bar, and told him about the Clinton emails over drinks.[15] After WikiLeaks released hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails on July 22, the Australian government on July 26 advised American authorities of the encounter between Downer and Papadopoulos, which spurred the FBI into launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation on July 31.[17][18]

Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) - Wikipedia

Special Counsel Mueller was appointed after Trump, the idiot-in-chief, fired Comey for not ending the investigation into Flynn:

The special counsel appointment on May 17, 2017, came after protests, mostly from Democrats, over President Trump firing the FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017.[51][52] In Congress, in reaction to Comey's firing, over 130 Democratic lawmakers called for a special counsel to be appointed, over 80 Democratic lawmakers called for an independent investigation, while over 40 Republican lawmakers expressed questions or concerns.[53] Another factor for the special counsel's appointment was Trump's shifting rationales for the dismissal, in some of which he seemed to imply that he had fired Comey because of the Russian investigation.[54] Also, in an attempt to spur the appointment of a special counsel, Comey arranged to leak to the press some notes he had taken, in which he said Trump asked him to end the probe into Michael Flynn.[55]

Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - Wikipedia

 

[Atomic Kid]

We know the 302 was rewritten by Strzok, the possibility that Flynn lied is in question.

No, the possibility that Flynn had lied is not in question. All they had to do was compare his answers with the recording of the call. And I believe it was Page who rewrote or edited it at Strzok's request, because he apparently sucks at writing. The judge has already ruled that "the notes, the draft FD 302 and the final FD 302 are consistent and clear that Flynn made false statements to the FBI about his communications with the Russian Ambassador in regard to his request that Russia refrain from escalating the situation in response to the US sanctions."

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Sure you will, its how a defense attorney will shred the **** out of its reliability to actual facts---you know things that can be proven. In a court you only get to use what you can prove. Its second and third party communications, funded by political opposition and originating in part, in Russia.

Stone cold reliable, amirite?

You are confusing criminal investigations with counterintelligence investigations.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Mishandling of 302s, affairs in office, using office communications to make record of bias to a coworker not read into all his cases, yeah he's credible as ****. Are you kidding me with this ****?

Yes, I think Strzok is credible.

Trump has lied or mislead people over 16,000 times since assuming office. Why do you find Trump credible?

Robert Litt was in the Obama administration so grain of salt on his pronouncements of who he finds credible.

Okay, are we now doing this thing where anyone ever working for an opposing political party's administration cannot be trusted?

Are you that rabidly hyper-partisan you can't entertain commentary from someone who worked for Obama?

FYI that story is a year old---a lot has changed.

05/14/20

Look at the date.

 

[iguanaman]

We know the 302 was rewritten by Strzok, the possibility that Flynn lied is in question.

He did discuss sanctions are you denying that now? He told the FBI and Pence that he did not discuss sanctions are you now denying that?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Legal instrument is a legal term of art that is used for any formally executed written document that can be formally attributed to its author, records and formally expresses a legally enforceable act, process, or contractual duty, obligation, or right, and therefore evidences that act, process, or agreement.

You can't answer the question, can you?

I'll give you another chance.

I would like you to point out where you found in the Special Counsel's report it says that for something like the dossier to be used as a legal instrument the document needs to be proven. I don't even need an exact quote. I just need you to show me something remotely resembling the comment you made, and the context in which it was made.

The dossier was literally gossip.

You're absolutely correct. Do you know why? Human-sourced intelligence is literally gossip. That's exactly what it is.

Gossip is part of spycraft.

The difference is this kind of gossip is not the kind of gossip you find in Real Housewives of New Jersey. This kind of gossip determines the fate of nations.

You have to establish the things in it occurred for it to used as a legal instrument---in other words corroboration. Its bull****. As evidence you can wipe your ass with it, its not good for anything else.

With respect to counterintelligence investigations, this is simply not true.

You simply don't need a whole lot of evidence to begin a counterintelligence investigation.

For instance, the CIA doesn't need a warrant to spy on a foreigner in a foreign country.

With respect to the tools the USIC needs to conduct investigations of U.S. citizens as it relates to a counterintelligence investigation, the more intrusive the tool, generally, the more verification of the evidence/clues/leads is required. So, with respect to counterintelligence investigations, your comment is true to some extent, but it's more of a continuum or a spectrum, rather than just a binary, yes/no, sort of thing.

Another example, with very little evidence, the FBI can begin counterintelligence of someone by, say, surveilling them in public where there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You can't answer the question, can you?

I'll give you another chance.

I would like you to point out where you found in the Special Counsel's report it says that for something like the dossier to be used as a legal instrument the document needs to be proven. I don't even need an exact quote. I just need you to show me something remotely resembling the comment you made, and the context in which it was made.

That was the legal definition of legal instrument. Quit your nitpicking bull****. You're wrong, get over it.

You're absolutely correct. Do you know why? Human-sourced intelligence is literally gossip. That's exactly what it is.

Gossip is part of spycraft.

The difference is this kind of gossip is not the kind of gossip you find in Real Housewives of New Jersey. This kind of gossip determines the fate of nations.

Drama llama nonsense. You have to prove it in a court of law. The dossier is primarily unprovable.

With respect to counterintelligence investigations, this is simply not true.

You simply don't need a whole lot of evidence to begin a counterintelligence investigation.

That's the problem!

For instance, the CIA doesn't need a warrant to spy on a foreigner in a foreign country.

With respect to the tools the USIC needs to conduct investigations of U.S. citizens as it relates to a counterintelligence investigation, the more intrusive the tool, generally, the more verification of the evidence/clues/leads is required. So, with respect to counterintelligence investigations, your comment is true to some extent, but it's more of a continuum or a spectrum, rather than just a binary, yes/no, sort of thing.

Didn't hold true in this case.

Another example, with almost very little evidence, the FBI can begin counterintelligence of someone by, say, surveilling them in public where there is no expectation of privacy.

Non sequitur

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Yes, I think Strzok is credible.

Trump has lied or mislead people over 16,000 times since assuming office. Why do you find Trump credible?

False assumption, Strzok's credibility is in no way dependent on Trumps credibility or lack of it.

Okay, are we now doing this thing where anyone ever working for an opposing political party's administration cannot be trusted?

Are you that rabidly hyper-partisan you can't entertain commentary from someone who worked for Obama?

When it involves intelligence operatives in the previous administration being neck deep in possible corruption? Hard pass.

05/14/20

Look at the date.

Yeah...year old. So?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

You are confusing criminal investigations with counterintelligence investigations.

This is a criminal trial we are talking about. It has to be proven to matter.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes they have, as had a former acting attorney general and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice and a former Acting US Attorney United States Deputy Attorney General. All of which expressed their concerns about the calls and you can bet that if there were anything exculpatory in those call transcripts Barr and Grinell would have released them by now. And Flynn has been prosecuted with a deal in place not to be prosecuted for the other criminal acts he had committed.

Appeal to authority concern trolling...chilling!

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

You don't remember posting this link to me?



Click on it and check out the date.

Goes to show a specific event. You are using old information that has been replaced by new revelations and then ignoring the new information. Show me new information, Ill discuss it.