BREAKING! Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn’s Sentencing

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you're a little behind the times. Flynn is well past the "indictment" phase - he's already plead guilty.

That's why they're talking about sentencing.

What happens if the guilty plea is not accepted by the judge because of some misconduct by the FBI brought out in the FISA memo?

It was already accepted.

What "misconduct" do you believe occurred?

Illegal FISA warrant.

Judges can change their mind if there is new evidence.

What illegal FISA warrant in regards to Flynn?

Several people have been claiming that there was no warrant for Flynn. Without a warrant, nothing is admissible. So there must have been a FISA warrant for Flynn, right?

None of us know the specifics. Some of us have been speculating that there might not have been a warrant for Flynn - which would not preclude evidence gathered during the surveillance of someone one that Flynn was incidentally caught up in.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ah haaaa! What do we have here? I think reality has set in and Mueller is now realizing what a shit storm he's gotten himself into. Mark my words, Flynn is going to get his indictment tossed due to the corrupt FISA Warrant. Mueller realizes that now.


JUST IN=> Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn's Sentencing

I think you're a little behind the times. Flynn is well past the "indictment" phase - he's already plead guilty.

That's why they're talking about sentencing.

Problem is if the whole investigation was tainted....everything gets thrown out.
The point I made a couple of months ago was the FBI went to the FISA court and committed perjury to get a warrant.

It's not quite that simple, actually.

If the charges against Flynn was based on illegally obtained evidence, he could appeal his guilty plea, but only if his lawyers had previously filed motions to suppress said evidence which were denied. I'm not aware of Flynn's lawyers challenging the evidence against him, but it's possible that it happened.

As for your fantasies of "perjury" to get the warrant - what are you basing that on, other than desire?

Apparently your "Law & Order" marathon law education is lacking.

Go back to school and learn it the right way.

I am at this moment, in Law School, fuckwit.

Being the night janitor and sweeping up the place does not count as being in law school.

If you are in law school, better get that refund now because it is not taking! That just might save you some time and money!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah, I am sure Flynn was calling the Russian ambassador on a payphone in Jersey City, NJ!

Doesn't matter one bit. Even if they were tapping the Russian Ambassador (they were) they illegally reviewed a U.S. Person's conversation without a warrant. THAT is the issue.

Poisonous tree.

Can you tell me what law was broken by "reviewing a U.S. Person's conversation" without a warrant?

How about the 4th Amendment? DUH!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A wiretap requires a warrant, does it not?

This is why unmasking of FISA data was held so tightly until Obama deiced to weaponize it. Unmasking required a warrant, not any more according to libs..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you're a little behind the times. Flynn is well past the "indictment" phase - he's already plead guilty.

That's why they're talking about sentencing.

Problem is if the whole investigation was tainted....everything gets thrown out.
The point I made a couple of months ago was the FBI went to the FISA court and committed perjury to get a warrant.

It's not quite that simple, actually.

If the charges against Flynn was based on illegally obtained evidence, he could appeal his guilty plea, but only if his lawyers had previously filed motions to suppress said evidence which were denied. I'm not aware of Flynn's lawyers challenging the evidence against him, but it's possible that it happened.

As for your fantasies of "perjury" to get the warrant - what are you basing that on, other than desire?

Apparently your "Law & Order" marathon law education is lacking.

Go back to school and learn it the right way.

I am at this moment, in Law School, fuckwit.

Being the night janitor and sweeping up the place does not count as being in law school.

If you are in law school, better get that refund now because it is not taking! That just might save you some time and money!

Ah yes, falling back on personal attacks.

That's very original. I don't think anyone's ever done that before!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So how is Flynn being prosecuted from a wiretap on the Russian ambassador if he was not the target of the surveillance?

I thought the offence was lying to the FBI.

edit...To which he has plead guilty. No?

How would they know he lied without the wiretap?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Several people have been claiming that there was no warrant for Flynn. Without a warrant, nothing is admissible. So there must have been a FISA warrant for Flynn, right?

Don't confuse Flynn with Carter Page.

There was no warrant for Flynn. The argument is that they illegally reviewed his telephone communications with the Russian Ambassador (warrantless is legal for him) but that they improperly unmasked Flynn and used that to coax a plea deal.

Again, ALL of this is speculation.

 

[Faun]

[
Great, maybe you can succeed where Tom Horn failed miserably....

Excuse me? If a subject believes himself to be in a "non-custodial" interview (say in the back of a patrol car) and the LEO doesn't inform him of legal jeopardy he may be in, then not Mirandizing him produces the poison fruit. Further, there's no better evidence than this caper to prove the FBI is free to lie their asses off to you but if you return the favor you go down for perjury.

Great .... show evidence that Flynn was interrogated in the back of a squad car -- or admit your "back of a patrol car" scenario has no bearing on Flynn.

Now prove Flynn was in custody when questioned.......

.... or tacitly confess you're doing nothing but blowing smoke out of your ass.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, I am sure Flynn was calling the Russian ambassador on a payphone in Jersey City, NJ!

Doesn't matter one bit. Even if they were tapping the Russian Ambassador (they were) they illegally reviewed a U.S. Person's conversation without a warrant. THAT is the issue.

Poisonous tree.

Can you tell me what law was broken by "reviewing a U.S. Person's conversation" without a warrant?

How about the 4th Amendment? DUH!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A wiretap requires a warrant, does it not?

This is why unmasking of FISA data was held so tightly until Obama deiced to weaponize it. Unmasking required a warrant, not any more according to libs..

According to the existing written and common law, this is not true.

It is possible that the Court could rule that way, at which point it would be, for all intents and purposes, codified.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ah yes, falling back on personal attacks.

That's very original. I don't think anyone's ever done that before!

No, dude. Don't even bother.

Just accept the night janitor label with pride. It's a badge of honor.

 

[Faun]

Don't base your knowledge of the law on Law & Order.

To use statements made while under arrest against someone in court, they must be Mirandized.

Flynn was not under arrest when he lied to the FBI.

You really are clueless..

Unsolicited statements are admissible without Miranda. Once you as a law enforcement officer asks a question, YOUR SOLICITING A STATEMENT.. and your stupid ass had better have Mirandized your suspect or its garbage.

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

No. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

custody

n. 1) holding property under one's control. 2) law enforcement officials' act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person. 3) in domestic relations (divorce, dissolution) a court's determination of which parent (or other appropriate party) should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor under 18. (See: child custody)

I can't link it, because it's behind a (very expensive) paywall. But there it is, nevertheless.

LOL

I've argued these cases in court... Good luck...

LOL

Yelling at Judge Judy isn't arguing in court.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Don't base your knowledge of the law on Law & Order.

To use statements made while under arrest against someone in court, they must be Mirandized.

Flynn was not under arrest when he lied to the FBI.

You really are clueless..

Unsolicited statements are admissible without Miranda. Once you as a law enforcement officer asks a question, YOUR SOLICITING A STATEMENT.. and your stupid ass had better have Mirandized your suspect or its garbage.

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

No. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

custody

n. 1) holding property under one's control. 2) law enforcement officials' act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person. 3) in domestic relations (divorce, dissolution) a court's determination of which parent (or other appropriate party) should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor under 18. (See: child custody)

I can't link it, because it's behind a (very expensive) paywall. But there it is, nevertheless.

LOL

I've argued these cases in court... Good luck...

...and I'm BATMAN!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Several people have been claiming that there was no warrant for Flynn. Without a warrant, nothing is admissible. So there must have been a FISA warrant for Flynn, right?

Don't confuse Flynn with Carter Page.

There was no warrant for Flynn. The argument is that they illegally reviewed his telephone communications with the Russian Ambassador (warrantless is legal for him) but that they improperly unmasked Flynn and used that to coax a plea deal.

Again, ALL of this is speculation.

You have a pretty good grasp... the others.. not so much...

 

[Faun]

Yeah, I am sure Flynn was calling the Russian ambassador on a payphone in Jersey City, NJ!

Doesn't matter one bit. Even if they were tapping the Russian Ambassador (they were) they illegally reviewed a U.S. Person's conversation without a warrant. THAT is the issue.

Poisonous tree.

Can you tell me what law was broken by "reviewing a U.S. Person's conversation" without a warrant?

How about the 4th Amendment? DUH!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A wiretap requires a warrant, does it not?

Flynn was not under surveillance.

 

[dudmuck]

Lets make this simple...

1. The Dossier, payed for by the Clinton Campign, was used to obtain a FISA warrant . The Dossier is fraudulent and disproved having no credibility.

2. Rosenstine and others knew the dossier was fraudulent and still presented it to the FISA court to obtain a wire tap warrant. This obtained Court orders by fraudulent means. A felony with a sentence of up to 10 years for each instance.

3. The FISA warrants (surveillance) gleaned information about potential criminal conduct through illegal unmasking and thus warrant-less and unreasonable search. (unmasking crimes, to numerous to count, are punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense)

4. Flynn was questioned formally, because of the illegal collection of information. They failed to Mirandize him and now his whole plea for "lying to the FBI" is now in question. The judge who presided over the hearing has recused himself due to conflicts. An investigation into unethical and illegal conduct is now open for the investigators and the sentencing placed on hold.


The whole of this goes back to the original dossier, its funding by a political opponent, the fact that those who presented it to the FISA court knew it was fraudulent and unverified.

Everything from the beginning is poisonous. Everything else is a distraction from the original point that this was done by fraud and with the intent to influence the election..

And everyone wonders why the do not want the memo released...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really are clueless..

Unsolicited statements are admissible without Miranda. Once you as a law enforcement officer asks a question, YOUR SOLICITING A STATEMENT.. and your stupid ass had better have Mirandized your suspect or its garbage.

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

No. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

custody

n. 1) holding property under one's control. 2) law enforcement officials' act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person. 3) in domestic relations (divorce, dissolution) a court's determination of which parent (or other appropriate party) should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor under 18. (See: child custody)

I can't link it, because it's behind a (very expensive) paywall. But there it is, nevertheless.

LOL

I've argued these cases in court... Good luck...

...and I'm BATMAN!

Enjoy your ignorance.... it suits you...

 

[Tom Horn]

This is why unmasking of FISA data was held so tightly until Obama deiced to weaponize it. Unmasking required a warrant, not any more according to libs..

And by unmasking Flynn they rolled a snowball down a hill until it was big as a Volkswagen bug. There was a clear intention to subvert the FISA protocols and the Constitution to wage war on the Trump administration. I'm not all that shocked by it....Hoover's FBI was twice as corrupt as Comey's...he held every politician in the country under the threat of blackmail so nobody ever challenged him. The best course at this time is showing future G-Men and the country at large that crooked cops can get caught and get the book thrown at them.

 

[del]

Enjoy your ignorance.... it suits you...

not as well as it does you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

No. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

custody

n. 1) holding property under one's control. 2) law enforcement officials' act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person. 3) in domestic relations (divorce, dissolution) a court's determination of which parent (or other appropriate party) should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor under 18. (See: child custody)

I can't link it, because it's behind a (very expensive) paywall. But there it is, nevertheless.

LOL

I've argued these cases in court... Good luck...

...and I'm BATMAN!

Enjoy your ignorance.... it suits you...

Wait...

I didn't catch this before - did you just claim to be a lawyer?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

None of us know the specifics. Some of us have been speculating that there might not have been a warrant for Flynn - which would not preclude evidence gathered during the surveillance of someone one that Flynn was incidentally caught up in.

It is my understanding that the U.S. Person cannot be unmasked without court approval, so Flynn's communications would be ill-gotten without a warrant or other court order (not sure how the unmasking works). That's the argument is that Flynn was illegally unmasked and that information used to get him to plead guilty.

Again, WILD speculation. I don't know jack shit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How about an illegally gotten tap on the phone? Actually, I would like to know what the conversation was exactly...mayne Flynn IS guilty.

It's not illegal to tap the Russian Ambassador's phone.

As for what they were talking about, it's been all over the news for a year now - and as for whether or not Flynn is guilty, he claims that he is, so why do you doubt him?

Like I said, I would like to know what he is guilty for. If it's trivial, or even illegal tactics used, Let him go. We have to have laws and the authorities have to abide by them. We are no better than a third world country if we allow illegal means used to get political enemies.

Flynn told the FBI that he had not talked to Ambassador Kislak about sanctions. The surveillence of Kislak, which picked up that phone call proved that he was lying.

Lying to the FBI is a crime, and the one that Flynn plead guilty to. There were no "illegal tactics" used, and no one forced Flynn to lie. It doesn't even really appear that he had reason to lie - but he did so anyway.

So how is Flynn being prosecuted from a wiretap on the Russian ambassador if he was not the target of the surveillance?

That would be like prosecuting someone for jaywalking when you can see him walking across the street on a traffic camera after he witnessed an armed robbery at a bank, and letting the bank robber go free!

Because he called the target of the surveillance, and their conversation was recorded.

I don't understand your delusional hypothetical - but I'll supply my own.

If the FBI sets up a long-term surveillance operation on a suspected drug kingpin's house (complete with legal warrants and everything) and happens to record a man kidnapping a woman, and throwing her into the trunk of his car in front of the drug kingpin's house.

Do you think that the evidence against the kidnapper, in the form of the video of him committing the crime, was "illegally acquired"? He wasn't the target of the surveillance.

Read the 4th Amendment! You'll find the answer there.

No warrant means no evidence.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If you get a warrant to search a drug kingpin's house, but you search a car parked in the backyard and find a few cases of moonshine, you are shit out of luck! If you didn't specify searching the car, nothing is admissible.