Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[westwall]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

 

[Coyote]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

Fraudulantly changed? No evidence to support that. I don't see how what the "believed" or did not believe would change the the actual facts.

According to the judge in the case:
“[T]he Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents’ notes.” Sullivan went on: “Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

No they didn't - they hired and paid Fusion GPS, an American company.

 

[iceberg]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

Fraudulantly changed? No evidence to support that. I don't see how what the "believed" or did not believe would change the the actual facts.

According to the judge in the case:
“[T]he Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents’ notes.” Sullivan went on: “Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

When sites do this shit

"Why the sudden interest in the Golden Oldies of the Trump scandals?" they are nothing more than an opinion site. In effect this is like DamnDude quoting me to prove a point.

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

No they didn't - they hired and paid Fusion GPS, an American company.

Fusiongps

fusiongps.com

Very... Informative site?

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

No they didn't - they hired and paid Fusion GPS, an American company.

Fusiongps

fusiongps.com

Very... Informative site?

And?

 

[beagle9]

"If dossier claims were still unverified when Comey testified to Congress in mid 2017 (and thereafter), then those claims could not have been verified when the Obama Justice Department and FBI submitted it to the FISC as a “VERIFIED APPLICATION” in October 2016. It also had to have been unverified on January 6, 2017, when the Obama administration chose to include a sliver of the dossier in the briefing of President-elect Trump — the day after intelligence chiefs met with President Obama in the Oval Office and discussed what Russia information should be shared with the incoming Trump team. "

There is proof positive that Obama was part of the attempted coup of Donald Trump. His FBI, Justice Department and intelligence leadership all were in on the plot to file false documents with the FISA court in order to spy on, and ultimately remove a legally elected president of the United States of America.

Ignore such illegalities at the peril of your own freedom.

Remove ? You mean prior to also, otherwise in an attempt to thwart him from ever becoming President right ??....... After that came the insurance policies one by one in an attempt to kill off his presidency through a "political play" called "death by a thousand cuts".

 

[Leo123]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

I'm basing my opinion on the Horowitz report which is the most complete and non-partisan source of information we have.

Oh yeah where he found "apparent errors or inadequately supported facts' in every single FBI Fisa application? Where he said that was indicative of a wider problem.

Yup. I agree on that. Which is why I agree that the FBI must be reformed.

Yet you still say the dossier was based on good procedure? Was it right to pass off a partially fake document to the FISA court as verfied?

Well no, I never said that. All I said is I was a raw intelligence dump some of which was subsequently verified and some not.

If they claimed it was all verified then they lied to the FISA courts.

Damn right they lied:

"Steele in his “reports” embellished his sources’ quotes, played up nonexistent angles, invented attributions, and ignored inconsistencies. The FBI then transplanted this bad reporting in the form of a warrant application and an addendum to the Intelligence Assessment that included the Steele material, ignoring a new layer of inconsistencies and red flags its analysts uncovered in the review process. "

'Corroboration Zero': An Inspector General's Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

The reports throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Faun]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

LOL

Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...

Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.

My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.​

Feeling stupid yet? How about now...

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.​

That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.​

That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.

And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.

And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

 

[Slade3200]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

 

[Faun]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

Liar. Hillary paid an American research firm. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[Faun]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?

Yes, there was. The hillary campaign PAID a foreign agent (that's the illegal part) to obtain information to affect the outcome of the election.

No they didn't - they hired and paid Fusion GPS, an American company.

Fusiongps

fusiongps.com

Very... Informative site?

That's what their site looks like now. It didn't always...

Fusion GPS

web.archive.org

 

[iceberg]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Bwahahahafucktardhahaha

 

[Leo123]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

 

[DamnDude]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

LOL

Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...

Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.​

​

My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.​

Feeling stupid yet? How about now...

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.​

That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.​

That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.

And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.

And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Damn, you are obtuse af...

Case Law 4 Cops Article-When Should You Read Someone Their Miranda Rights?

What if you make a mistake and obtain an incriminating statement without reading the person the Miranda warnings? The United States Supreme Court made the following statement that answers this question: "Absent deliberate coercion or improper tactics in obtaining an unwarned statement, a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings cures the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible". [4] So, all you have to do is read him the Miranda warnings and question him again. Any deliberate or improper tactics, however, will bar any admissions. The Miranda warnings cannot overcome the taint of an illegal arrest. [5]

I have neither the patience nor the ability to make you understand something that should be so evidently clear.
Once again, you're dismissed.

 

[iceberg]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

But it's OK when they do it.

 

[iceberg]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

LOL

Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...

Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.​

​

My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.​

Feeling stupid yet? How about now...

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.​

That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.​

That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.

And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.

And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You are "manning up" with a dancing 7 up dot?

You are dismissed.

 

[Faun]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

You're the liar, not the FBI...

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

Flynn’s attorneys accused the FBI deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, of pushing their client into not having counsel present during his interview with bureau officials.

www.politico.com

Former FBI Director James Comey says Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, was told he could have an attorney present during a meeting with bureau officials last year, but Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[Faun]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

LOL

Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...

Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.​

​

My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.​

Feeling stupid yet? How about now...

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.​

That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.​

That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.

And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.

And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Damn, you are obtuse af...

Case Law 4 Cops Article-When Should You Read Someone Their Miranda Rights?

What if you make a mistake and obtain an incriminating statement without reading the person the Miranda warnings? The United States Supreme Court made the following statement that answers this question: "Absent deliberate coercion or improper tactics in obtaining an unwarned statement, a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings cures the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible". [4] So, all you have to do is read him the Miranda warnings and question him again. Any deliberate or improper tactics, however, will bar any admissions. The Miranda warnings cannot overcome the taint of an illegal arrest. [5]

I have neither the patience nor the ability to make you understand something that should be so evidently clear.
Once again, you're dismissed.

LOL

Holyfuck are you ever rightarded.

You said Flynn wasn't read his Miranda rights. So he couldn't have been read them later and asked again.

And again, he was never in custody so there was nothing to compel the agents to Mirandize him.

It's beyond clear you've never been involved in any investigations. At least not on the giving side.

 

[Faun]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

LOL

Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...

Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.​

​

My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.​

Feeling stupid yet? How about now...

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.​

That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Here's more from my link...

My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.​

That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.

Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.

And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.

And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You are "manning up" with a dancing 7 up dot?

You are dismissed.

LOLOL

Oh no's... You're swinging your purse at me again??