Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It went from : He didn't lie, to he did lie.
Please try to keep up.
Because it was the agents "opinion" that Flynn wasn't lying. It was a fact that from the content of the NSA intercept, that Flynn was lying.
And you would know about the editing that went on here because Adam Schiff read a "parody" transcript at the impeachment hearings which was then entered into the record and used as evidence against Trump when it fact it was admittedly a complete fabrication.Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.We could be, but we aren't.Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?
Neither Trumps phone call or Flynns interview were recorded. The 302 and the transcript came from people hearing it and taking notes, putting the notes together to recreate what was said.Apples and Oranges.
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.
That's a fucking lie!!!Flynn was NOT the subject or target of an investigation, or the FBI would have informed him, and informed him of a right to have a lawyer.Weird.....when I was interviewed for my TS security clearance in the Army they asked me if I wanted a lawyer present and had me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Michael was not informed he could have a lawyer present nor was he informed that he was under investigation. And because he was under investigation they needed to inform him of his rights.
Flynn was NOT under investigation. They were questioning Flynn to verify what Flynn told Pence.
And as you said during your TS interview (which Flynn went through half a dozen times) they need not remind him "one more time"
Actually we know about the editing because Lt Col Alexander Vidman, who spoke both english and ukraine, was listening to the call.And you would know about the editing that went on here because Adam Schiff read a "parody" transcript at the impeachment hearings which was then entered into the record and used as evidence against Trump when it fact it was admittedly a complete fabrication.
Bullshit.Neither Trumps phone call or Flynns interview were recorded. The 302 and the transcript came from people hearing it and taking notes, putting the notes together to recreate what was said.Apples and Oranges.
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.
Both are edited by others, but one requires the interviewer "sign off" on the changes, the other does not.
A FD-302 is the form by which the FBI documents any conversation they had that may be of importance to any matter being investigated by the FBI. The person they interview need not be under investigation, nor even knowledgeable of why they are being interviewed. And if not the subject or target, they are rarely even told why they are being interviewed.That's a fucking lie!!!
This wasn't just an interview. You don't fill out an 302 form when it's just a job interview. The Form 302 is an interview that might be used in testimony. There has to be an ongoing investigation to prepare for an indictment or a Grand Jury investigation. So they should have informed him thusly.
I read Sullivan’s ruling from last December. The defendant does not get access to deliberations among the prosecution. Those are protected and do not need to be turned over. Deliberations do not equal behavior and the notes do not indicate that Flynn was set up. They merely indicate they expected him to lie to their questions and were wondering if they were going to let him do that or if they should present their evidence to him first.Is failing to turn over Brady evidence "misconduct" in your opinion?I think people should be allowed to change their plea if they demonstrate coercion or misconduct. That hasn’t been demonstrated here.
Is evidence that the investigators were contemplating their strategy to get Flynn caught in a lie considered "material" in your opinion?
Many people would conclude that evidence showing how investigators were planning on trying to catch Flynn in a lie seriously casts doubt on the prosecution's case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...be0f30-8a67-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html“What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” an unidentified person wrote in notes apparently taken before Flynn was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, four days after Trump took office.
That comment alone calls into question the intent element of the crime (knowingly and willfully).
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...ual-916-false-statements-federal-investigatorBy its plain terms, § 1001 (as it existed before it was amended in October 1996), broadly reaches "[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . .makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations. . . ."
It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government. See JM 9-42.160 for a discussion of the Department's policy. This policy is to be narrowly construed, however; affirmative, discursive and voluntary statements to Federal criminal investigators would not fall within the policy. Further, certain false responses to questions propounded for administrative purposes (e.g., statements to border or United States Immigration and Naturalization Service agents during routine inquiries) are also prosecutable, as are untruthful "no's" when the defendant initiated contact with the government in order to obtain a benefit.
And, as far as withdrawing the guilty plea is concerned:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-showA defendant may withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing if he "can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." FED.R.CRIM.P. 11(d)(2)(B). Although "[w]ithdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing is to be liberally granted," United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924, 929 (D.C.Cir.1998), we review a district court's refusal to permit withdrawal only for abuse of discretion, United States v. Hanson, 339 F.3d 983, 988 (D.C.Cir.2003). In reviewing such a refusal, we consider three factors: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has substantially prejudiced the government's ability to prosecute the case; and (3) whether the guilty plea was somehow tainted." Id. (quoting United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102, 106 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929)).
If there is any question as to whether the handwritten notes would be exculpatory, why would a Court not liberally grant the request?
.
Page made some grammatical changes and edited for clarity. She made no substantive changes.Apples and Oranges.Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.We could be, but we aren't.Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.
That assumes that agents don't have an agenda or a plan going into the interview.A FD-302 is the form by which the FBI documents any conversation they had that may be of importance to any matter being investigated by the FBI. The person they interview need not be under investigation, nor even knowledgeable of why they are being interviewed. And if not the subject or target, they are rarely even told why they are being interviewed.That's a fucking lie!!!
This wasn't just an interview. You don't fill out an 302 form when it's just a job interview. The Form 302 is an interview that might be used in testimony. There has to be an ongoing investigation to prepare for an indictment or a Grand Jury investigation. So they should have informed him thusly.
This only works if you believe that everyone involved did everything by the book without inserting politics into it.I read Sullivan’s ruling from last December. The defendant does not get access to deliberations among the prosecution. Those are protected and do not need to be turned over. Deliberations do not equal behavior and the notes do not indicate that Flynn was set up. They merely indicate they expected him to lie to their questions and were wondering if they were going to let him do that or if they should present their evidence to him first.Is failing to turn over Brady evidence "misconduct" in your opinion?I think people should be allowed to change their plea if they demonstrate coercion or misconduct. That hasn’t been demonstrated here.
Is evidence that the investigators were contemplating their strategy to get Flynn caught in a lie considered "material" in your opinion?
Many people would conclude that evidence showing how investigators were planning on trying to catch Flynn in a lie seriously casts doubt on the prosecution's case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...be0f30-8a67-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html“What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” an unidentified person wrote in notes apparently taken before Flynn was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, four days after Trump took office.
That comment alone calls into question the intent element of the crime (knowingly and willfully).
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...ual-916-false-statements-federal-investigatorBy its plain terms, § 1001 (as it existed before it was amended in October 1996), broadly reaches "[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . .makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations. . . ."
It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government. See JM 9-42.160 for a discussion of the Department's policy. This policy is to be narrowly construed, however; affirmative, discursive and voluntary statements to Federal criminal investigators would not fall within the policy. Further, certain false responses to questions propounded for administrative purposes (e.g., statements to border or United States Immigration and Naturalization Service agents during routine inquiries) are also prosecutable, as are untruthful "no's" when the defendant initiated contact with the government in order to obtain a benefit.
And, as far as withdrawing the guilty plea is concerned:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-showA defendant may withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing if he "can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." FED.R.CRIM.P. 11(d)(2)(B). Although "[w]ithdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing is to be liberally granted," United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924, 929 (D.C.Cir.1998), we review a district court's refusal to permit withdrawal only for abuse of discretion, United States v. Hanson, 339 F.3d 983, 988 (D.C.Cir.2003). In reviewing such a refusal, we consider three factors: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has substantially prejudiced the government's ability to prosecute the case; and (3) whether the guilty plea was somehow tainted." Id. (quoting United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102, 106 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929)).
If there is any question as to whether the handwritten notes would be exculpatory, why would a Court not liberally grant the request?
.
The notes are not exculpatory because at the end of the day, they don’t change the facts of what happened.
Can you swear to that in court, or are you assuming that's the case?Page made some grammatical changes and edited for clarity. She made no substantive changes.Apples and Oranges.Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.We could be, but we aren't.Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.
Bullshit.
The NSA was listening in on Trump’s communications. The why Col Vindman became a whistleblower. How the fuck were they supposed to relate what was in the conversation if there was no record of it???? Do they all have eidetic memories or something?
THAT IS NOT DELIBERATIONS AMONG THE PROSECUTION!!!!The defendant does not get access to deliberations among the prosecution.
They don't have to indicate ANYTHING but to cast doubt on the prosecutor's case. NAMELY, Flynn's intent. Flynn can use those notes to show that it was not his intent to lie. They set him up. That is a defense to the willful aspect.Deliberations do not equal behavior and the notes do not indicate that Flynn was set up.
And therefore, they planned to push him in that direction SOLELY to prosecute him. That DOES cast doubt on his intent. They must prove that it was done WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY.They merely indicate they expected him to lie to their questions and were wondering if they were going to let him do that or if they should present their evidence to him first.
That assumes that agents don't have an agenda or a plan going into the interview.
The plan was to find the truth about the phone call with the russian ambassador in december (while Flynn was a private citizen aka American 1).So basically they set him up because this kind of shit is normal practice and they knew they would probably get away with it, which is exactly what James Comey joked about when he admitted it was a setup.
They merely indicate they expected him to lie to their questions and were wondering if they were going to let him do that or if they should present their evidence to him first.
No more than when apprehending an armed subject they yell "FBI, throw out your weapon, and come out with your hands up" And planning what to do if the suspect starts shooting instead of giving up.And therefore, they planned to push him in that direction SOLELY to prosecute him. That DOES cast doubt on his intent. They must prove that it was done WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY.
You don't think that is something a jury would at least consider? Seriously?
.
I have to agree with Republicans on this one.
it can’t be all that secret if the Russians know.
So basically if that's really the case, the whistleblower made it all up, cuz nobody listened in on his conversation. But you don't have to listen in on a conversation to get computer generated transcripts from the conversation. The NSA data-mines phone conversations all of the time..and nobody is listening in. I guess we have to be specific about every detail to keep people from avoiding the truth.Bullshit.
The NSA was listening in on Trump’s communications. The why Col Vindman became a whistleblower. How the fuck were they supposed to relate what was in the conversation if there was no record of it???? Do they all have eidetic memories or something?
The NSA doesn't listen in on presidential phone calls made from the oval office. I need not remind you that the president is given a special phone that is encrypted from outside monitoring.
Trump's "beautiful" Oval Office phones and what was changed on them
A weblog about Signals Intelligence, Communications Security and top level telecommunications equipmentwww.electrospaces.net
Based upon the photos that have been published, president Trump used ... the secure one was used for phone calls with Russian president Putin and Australian prime minister Turnbull. This means that these latter heads of state have been provided with the necessary encryption systems to set up a secure communication channel.
View attachment 339582
Can you swear to that in court, or are you assuming that's the case?Page made some grammatical changes and edited for clarity. She made no substantive changes.Apples and Oranges.Then why two different views on the editing of transcripts. Where presidential transcripts (covered by presidential records act) are routinely edited by people who weren't in on the call.We could be, but we aren't.Are you talking about the Transcript of Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President?
You're confusing a criminal investigation with transposing dialog during communications. And the person that is transposing the transcripts needs to hear the conversation personally either live or by recording. Page altered the 302 without doing either. Apples and oranges.
That assumes that agents don't have an agenda or a plan going into the interview.
The FBI always has a plan going into an interview. They need to know what information they are trying to elicit from the person being interviewed.
The plan was to find the truth about the phone call with the russian ambassador in december (while Flynn was a private citizen aka American 1).So basically they set him up because this kind of shit is normal practice and they knew they would probably get away with it, which is exactly what James Comey joked about when he admitted it was a setup.
They were to find out what was discussed, and gave Flynn the chance to respond truthfully.
