Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[mudwhistle]

So you admit she altered the original 302, which is a federal offense.

Show me the federal statute that makes this an offense.

That's easy. It's called forgery, fraud and falsifying government documents of any kind.

8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud

www.law.cornell.edu

That’s immigration law silly. You quoted a law related to falsifying immigration documents.

Page did not forge the 302 you goofball. Thats the actual document.

Bullshit.
FYI US code for document fraud doesn't cover just immigration. Immigration is written into the same code because it happens frequently.


So you think forging someone else's 302s is no big deal? Or are you trying to argue that Page and Strzok are claiming they didn't change anything?

I've got news for you, they've admitted to doing it?

So you admit she altered the original 302, which is a federal offense.

Show me the federal statute that makes this an offense.

That's easy. It's called forgery, fraud and falsifying government documents of any kind.

8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud

www.law.cornell.edu

That’s immigration law silly. You quoted a law related to falsifying immigration documents.

Page did not forge the 302 you goofball. Thats the actual document.

Bullshit.
FYI US code for document fraud doesn't cover just immigration. Immigration is written into the same code because it happens frequently.


So you think forging someone else's 302s is no big deal? Or are you trying to argue that Page and Strzok are claiming they didn't change anything?

I've got news for you, they've admitted to doing it?

It wasn’t a forgery. God can you be this obtuse? That’s the actual 302. It was signed by both agents. No one forged it.

By the way, the statute refers directly to immigration :
(a)Activities prohibitedIt is unlawful for any person or entity knowingly—
(1)to forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of this chapter or to obtain a benefit under this chapter,

“this chapter” refers to immigration law.

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

On my Android that is where it took me for every entry covering forgery, fraud, or otherwise. Immigration fraud is just one example the law covers. If I had access to a US Code annotated I could be more exact. If you have done legal searches before it often refers to the same code involved but different chapters covering the specific crime.

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

 

[mudwhistle]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

 

[Nostra]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

 

[mudwhistle]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

Lo
She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

The problem here is you're gullible. You actually believe that FBI agents never fudge their reports. That everything they submitted was a 100% exact copy of the original. Any changes whatsoever makes it an alternate version.....an alternate version was used to accuse Flynn of perjury, so accuracy was essential to the case. The I. G. stated clearly in his report that agents were guilty of "omissions and misrepresentations."

Now, are you gonna claim it was just an honest mistake??

 

[colfax_m]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

Yes. Editing is changing. It’s changing a draft. That’s what you do with drafts. You change them until you finalize the draft. Then the agents review the final draft and sign off on it attesting that the final draft is accurate. Therefore, it cannot be considered a forgery since their signing off on it makes it the official document.

The 302 accurately reflect the handwritten notes from the agents involved.

 

[mudwhistle]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

She may have done the typing for someone else, but the big rub is the fact that her emails with Strzok showed her discussing changing the 302 to cause a perjury trap

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

Yes. Editing is changing. It’s changing a draft. That’s what you do with drafts. You change them until you finalize the draft. Then the agents review the final draft and sign off on it attesting that the final draft is accurate. Therefore, it cannot be considered a forgery since their signing off on it makes it the official document.

The 302 accurately reflect the handwritten notes from the agents involved.

Apparently not. Any edit is a change and any agent that signs off on the edits without notifying his supervisor is committing fraud.
I call this sloppy paperwork at best and a criminal conspiracy at worst.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a forgery if the document they submitted was changed. Doesn't matter if the agents signed off on it if they weren't aware of all of the changes Page made and admitted to in her emails.

It wasn’t changed. Page did not alter the document after it was signed and submitted by the agents. The 302 that was originally submitted was never changed. I’ve linked the 302 in this thread already. No one changed it.

Page made some edits to a draft. The agents reviewed the final draft before signing it. After that, it wasn’t changed.

So you're claiming edits aren't changes?

Who's to say they didn't change material facts to make it appear that Flynn was lying. Changing a yes or no answer is enough to do the job.

Yes. Editing is changing. It’s changing a draft. That’s what you do with drafts. You change them until you finalize the draft. Then the agents review the final draft and sign off on it attesting that the final draft is accurate. Therefore, it cannot be considered a forgery since their signing off on it makes it the official document.

The 302 accurately reflect the handwritten notes from the agents involved.

Apparently not. Any edit is a change and any agent that signs off on the edits without notifying his supervisor is committing fraud.
I call this sloppy paperwork at best and a criminal conspiracy at worst.

Why? They were drafting the 302. That’s what you do when you draft. You make changes.

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

 

[deanrd]

I have to agree with Republicans on this one. We need more transparency. Let the Flynn/Kislyak transcript go public. The Russians know what it says. How come they get to know what it says and regular Americans don’t get to know.

Release the transcript.

 

[Nostra]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

 

[meaner gene]

The problem here is you're gullible. You actually believe that FBI agents never fudge their reports. That everything they submitted was a 100% exact copy of the original. Any changes whatsoever makes it an alternate version.....an alternate version was used to accuse Flynn of perjury, so accuracy was essential to the case. The I. G. stated clearly in his report that agents were guilty of "omissions and misrepresentations."

Now, are you gonna claim it was just an honest mistake??

Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Flynn pled to avoid imprisonment, if he withdrew his plea then he should be sent to prison for the crimes he committed.

After he is tried and convicted by a jury, of course, right?

.

IM2?

It appears to me that you never respond when you know I have a good point.

Am I wrong?

.

 

[colfax_m]

Flynn pled to avoid imprisonment, if he withdrew his plea then he should be sent to prison for the crimes he committed.

After he is tried and convicted by a jury, of course, right?

.

He waived his right to a jury trial by pleading guilty.

 

[colfax_m]

God can you be so dense.
Page wasn't the original agent.

The statue refers to immigration document fraud but it covers any document fraud.

The statute refers specifically to immigration law therefore it doesn’t cover all document fraud. That would be a different statute.

Page wasn’t the original agent which is why she didn’t sign it. The two agents who did the interview did sign it. Therefore the document can’t be considered a forgery since it was properly signed by the proper agents.

This is without a doubt the silliest argument I’ve ever seen here.

So you're claiming now that she did not alter it?

Is that your story?

Because if she altered the 302, who is guilty of misrepresenting the facts, and who is guilty of fraud?

Answer: The agents swore that the 302 was accurate, which it wasn't, and Page was guilty of forgery when she changed the original 302. So Page is guilty of fraud and forgery as well as misleading the original agents. If the original agents, who remain unidentified, where aware of the changes and didn't state as much, then they are also guilty of fraud.

She edited parts of a draft. The final draft was signed by both agents and entered as part of the record. Page did not alter anything that had been finalized. She was part of the drafting process.

That’s not a forgery. Good lord. A forgery is when you create a document to portray as the real official document. This is the official 302.

She wasn't suppose to be editing anything since she didn't interview Flynn.

Says who?

The FBI, Dummy.

Are you the FBI? Where did the FBI say that?

 

[meaner gene]

Flynn pled to avoid imprisonment, if he withdrew his plea then he should be sent to prison for the crimes he committed.

After he is tried and convicted by a jury, of course, right?

Flynns problem is that he plead guilty, not just to what he was charged with, but he allocuted to crimes not charged.

And yes, Flynn is entitled to a jury trial on those charges, but Flynn will have a difficult case trying to prove that he shouldn't be charged with perjury for what he swore to, under penalty of perjury, that he now claims innocence of.