DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[DevoHusker]

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan: “Were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?”

Flynn: "I was aware."

Sullivan: "You are guilty of this offense?"

Flynn: "Yes, your honor."

Sullivan: “Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by FBI?”

Flynn: "No, your honor. I was aware that lying to FBI was a crime."

Judge: "Do you believe that you were entrapped by FBI?"

Flynn: "No."

some additional info:

https://apnews.com/

As part of that process, the Justice Department gave Flynn’s attorneys internal FBI correspondence, including one handwritten note from a senior FBI official that mapped out internal deliberations about the purpose of the Flynn interview: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

Show me where Is misstated the story. Here's the tweet I posted:


Note the words "sexual harassment" in that tweet. And here's a copy of the court document:



Note the words "sexual harassment" in that document.

So who's misstating the story?

The issue with this is it both collaborates her 1st and 2nd stories. So why are we to believe the 2020 version over the 2019 version?

 

[DevoHusker]

I don't want to beat a dead horse but I think there is a misinterpretation of the code. It's illegal to lie to a federal agent, end of story. Specifically in this case I bolded the really important part. Flynn lied. He admitted he lied. Ignorance is not a defense for the common man.

https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter47&edition=prelim

:cop:

I think you are correct, with regards to the written code itself. Kudos.

With regards to day to day implementation: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-916-false-statements-federal-investigator

It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government. See JM 9-42.160 for a discussion of the Department's policy. This policy is to be narrowly construed, however; affirmative, discursive and voluntary statements to Federal criminal investigators would not fall within the policy.

 

[ZRod]

some additional info:

https://apnews.com/

As part of that process, the Justice Department gave Flynn’s attorneys internal FBI correspondence, including one handwritten note from a senior FBI official that mapped out internal deliberations about the purpose of the Flynn interview: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Isn't that what they should be doing? Get the truth or detect the lie so that he doesn't jeopardize the country??? There is nothing wrong with those notes.

 

[DevoHusker]

Isn't that what they should be doing? Get the truth or detect the lie so that he doesn't jeopardize the country??? There is nothing wrong with those notes.

I would rather see a concerted effort to get the truth. Not a coin toss to see if he would lie...because then the truth can be whitewashed for whatever agenda was in place at that time.

Look ZRod, I too believe the Trump Administration overall is guilty, dirty liars...I just don't feel that Flynn should have been painted with that broad brush. Trump and his inner circle were pissed and fired Flynn for his actions, because they thought he was going to do them dirty, not because "lied to the FBI"

 

[knapplc]

Show me where Is misstated the story. Here's the tweet I posted:


Note the words "sexual harassment" in that tweet. And here's a copy of the court document:



Note the words "sexual harassment" in that document.

So who's misstating the story?

You're misstating the story. Because this is not corroboration that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. Any assertion that this "corroborates her story" has to specify which of her stories it's corroborating.

This could corroborate that she felt like an ornament, "like a lamp."

This could corroborate that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden.

This could corroborate that she felt sexually harassed by literally anyone in Joe Biden's office.

This does not implicate Joe Biden, it says she related "a problem that she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden's office."

Joe Biden wasn't the only male working in that office.

This does not corroborate that Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. Any statement about corroboration needs to include that, specifically, because of all the versions of the story she's told.

 

[teachercd]

You're misstating the story. Because this is not corroboration that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. Any assertion that this "corroborates her story" has to specify which of her stories it's corroborating.

This could corroborate that she felt like an ornament, "like a lamp."

This could corroborate that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden.

This could corroborate that she felt sexually harassed by literally anyone in Joe Biden's office.

This does not implicate Joe Biden, it says she related "a problem that she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden's office."

Joe Biden wasn't the only male working in that office.

This does not corroborate that Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. Any statement about corroboration needs to include that, specifically, because of all the versions of the story she's told.

Good lord man

 

[knapplc]

 

Trump Sets Free Another Russia Probe Criminal, Then Gloats With Putin


On the same day as the Justice Department’s extraordinary announcement, Trump held yet another phone call with Vladimir Putin. Trump told reporters he discussed the “hoax” with the Russian president. “I said, ‘You know, it’s a very appropriate time, because things are falling out now and coming in line … and I wouldn’t be surprised if you see a lot of things happen over the next number of weeks.’”

If anybody could intuitively grasp Trump’s ambition for how a justice system should operate, it is Putin. Trump has spent months making such promises of vindication for his friends and retribution against anybody who helped investigate them. Unlike many of his boasts, these seem not to be empty. In Barr he has found an operator who is capable of bringing his debased vision of justice to life.

 

[RedDenver]

The issue with this is it both collaborates her 1st and 2nd stories. So why are we to believe the 2020 version over the 2019 version?

You're misstating the story. Because this is not corroboration that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. Any assertion that this "corroborates her story" has to specify which of her stories it's corroborating.

This could corroborate that she felt like an ornament, "like a lamp."

This could corroborate that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden.

This could corroborate that she felt sexually harassed by literally anyone in Joe Biden's office.

This does not implicate Joe Biden, it says she related "a problem that she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden's office."

Joe Biden wasn't the only male working in that office.

This does not corroborate that Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. Any statement about corroboration needs to include that, specifically, because of all the versions of the story she's told.

Here's my reply from the other thread in full:

Again, we know her story has changed. Reade herself has acknowledge it and discussed why in a couple of interviews now. Plus it's common for sexual assault victims to not tell the whole story.

However, this is now a court document showing that she told the story back in 1996, which puts to bed all the "she made this up after Biden was the likely nominee" and "her neighbor is lying/misremembering" arguments.

The Biden campaign and staff has said that NOTHING ever happened. And yet we have this document from 1996 where Reade said she left her position because of it, and the interns she was managing at the time confirmed she was suddenly reassigned and then left.

Again, who's misstating the story?

Me, who has repeatedly and consistently said that there's reason to be skeptical of Reade because her story has changed but has also acknowledged that there's evidence to support parts of her account? Or those who won't even acknowledge that there's evidence that supports parts of Reade's story?

Remember the claims that the neighbor might be lying? Or that Reade only made this up after Biden was the likely nominee? Or that this is being orchestrated by Putin? Where's even a simple acknowledgement that this document blows up those claims?

 

[TGHusker]

I'm more interested in the truth. Ignoring Biden's flaws and pretending he's done no wrong is the path to what the GOP has become.

I agree with this.  Primarily 2 things are important to me:  1. Truth - we've seen what the GOP did when they ignored the truth of who tRump was/is.   Regarding truth: it can't be ignored, it will eventually come out.  That is where we are stuck - we got his word vs her word.    2. A horse that can beat trump in the election.  I don't care about the color, size or shape of the horse - just beat tRump.  At this point I don't care if it is Biden, Sanders, Warren, Cuomo or the Tulsa County dog catcher.   If Biden is the nominee, I will vote for him.  If he is the nominee and it becomes clear that he wasn't truthful about Tara, then I hope he has the intigrity to step down and had picked a great VP candidate - I'll voter for her in that case.  If Biden is the nominee and wins the election I hope he has picked a great VP as I don't think he makes it 4 years.

 

[teachercd]

I agree with this.  Primarily 2 things are important to me:  1. Truth - we've seen what the GOP did when they ignored the truth of who tRump was/is.   Regarding truth: it can't be ignored, it will eventually come out.  That is where we are stuck - we got his word vs her word.    2. A horse that can beat trump in the election.  I don't care about the color, size or shape of the horse - just beat tRump.  At this point I don't care if it is Biden, Sanders, Warren, Cuomo or the Tulsa County dog catcher.   If Biden is the nominee, I will vote for him.  If he is the nominee and it becomes clear that he wasn't truthful about Tara, then I hope he has the intigrity to step down and had picked a great VP candidate - I'll voter for her in that case.  If Biden is the nominee and wins the election I hope he has picked a great VP as I don't think he makes it 4 years.

See, I wish more people would just admit this.  I get it, it sucks that you might be voting for a dude that is creepy AF and assaults women...but it is okay if you don't care about that part because it means you get rid of Trump.  No one will think less of you and if they do, and it is a poster, who cares??

 

[knapplc]

Here's my reply from the other thread in full:

Again, who's misstating the story?

Me, who has repeatedly and consistently said that there's reason to be skeptical of Reade because her story has changed but has also acknowledged that there's evidence to support parts of her account? Or those who won't even acknowledge that there's evidence that supports parts of Reade's story?

Remember the claims that the neighbor might be lying? Or that Reade only made this up after Biden was the likely nominee? Or that this is being orchestrated by Putin? Where's even a simple acknowledgement that this document blows up those claims?

It doesn't blow anything up. 

That document doesn't say Biden did anything, let alone shove her against the wall, rape her, and say horribly caustic things to her. Because if he did anything else than that, this isn't a story. The ONLY reason we're talking about this is if he assaulted her.

If there's no corroboration of that, this is not evidence we care about.

 

[TGHusker]

but it is okay if you don't care about that part because it means you get rid of Trump.  No one will think less of you and if they do, and it is a poster, who cares??

Good Grief, You got my post all wrong.  I said I want truth first and foremost.  If the truth is that Biden sexually assaulted anyone, I don't want him any where near the Dem nomination podium.    My second point is reliant on the assumption that Biden did NOT assault her - then he can run and get rid of Trump.  If is later proven that Biden did assault her - then he needs to be replaced.  Therefore, I don't care who the Dem nominee  (I did not say I don't care if Biden assaulted or not)  is as long as they are people of integrity ( as best as any politician can be). 

 

[teachercd]

Good Grief, You got my post all wrong.  I said I want truth first and foremost.  If the truth is that Biden sexually assaulted anyone, I don't want him any where near the Dem nomination podium.    My second point is reliant on the assumption that Biden did NOT assault her - then he can run and get rid of Trump.  If is later proven that Biden did assault her - then he needs to be replaced.  Therefore, I don't care who the Dem nominee  (I did not say I don't care if Biden assaulted or not)  is as long as they are people of integrity ( as best as any politician can be). 

Oh, i did get it wrong.

Sorry about that!

 

[RedDenver]

It doesn't blow anything up. 

That document doesn't say Biden did anything, let alone shove her against the wall, rape her, and say horribly caustic things to her. Because if he did anything else than that, this isn't a story. The ONLY reason we're talking about this is if he assaulted her.

If there's no corroboration of that, this is not evidence we care about.

Remember when the neighbor might secretly have something to gain by coming forward:

Even if the neighbor is misremembering and it was 2006 instead of 1996, that doesn't change anything about the argument I was arguing against.

Is it possible Reade is lying and the neighbor is misremembering or lying about the actual assault? Yes, it's possible. But it's also possible Biden is lying or misremembering. It's not about what's possible, but what's most likely given the evidence. The neighbor has nothing to gain by coming forward in this case and a whole lot to lose, so you'd have to think she'd be really certain before coming forward. She could have remained silent and the public would have never known.

In presidential politics, you can't seriously believe there wouldn't be an incentive for this kind of accusation. She definitely could have a lot to lose, depending on her motives, but she could also just be a dupe. People eat Tide pods because they saw an internet meme. There's nothing conclusory to draw about the neighbor coming forward like this. 

Does the court document from 1996 also have something to gain? Or maybe the ex-husband who could see 19 years into the future to see what his statement might gain him?

Or does the court document instead lend credibility to the neighbor's statement since she said Reade told her the story in 1996, and the document is also from 1996?