- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What exactly was Flynn’s supposed lie?
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's basically how the FBI works
When someone pleads guilty, in order for that plea to be accepted by the Court, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour. The Court reads a patter about how it must be voluntary and knowing. There was a vice of consent here. This was illegally coerced. It is why his withdrawal should be accepted by law. It is also why the Court now wants to examine the possibility of criminal contempt, despite the fact that criminal contempt must be charged by the prosecution, not the court.
1
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:36 am to Jimbeaux
I understand the lie was. FBI -did you meet with the Russian ambassador on this date?” He said no when he did interact with him at a convention in passing in a hallway. FBI “you lied about this “meeting” If you deny this, we are going after Your son and family”
Flynn- “alright it was a meeting and I lied“
Flynn- “alright it was a meeting and I lied“
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:37 am to therick711
quote:
in order for that plea to be accepted by the Court, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour.
maybe for a sex offense with registration
quote:
This was illegally coerced
how?
there is an argument for this, but i don't think you're making that argument
quote:
It is also why the Court now wants to examine the possibility of criminal contempt, despite the fact that criminal contempt must be charged by the prosecution, not the court.
courts can find people in contempt on their own
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what secret side deal?
Van Grack made a secret deal with the Covington attorneys to not charge Flynn, but he did not want it disclosed because if Flynn provided evidence against Trump he did not want it tainted. We found this out when Covington "found" more file materials that should have been provided to Flynn's new counsel.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:37 am to Jimbeaux
TL:DR-You saw my last explanation was crazy. It is purposely convoluted so idiotic prog filth and plain idiots can't understand anything but that Flynn lied and Race Bannon said so.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:37 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Bongino keeps hitting on a point that there was never any discussions of sanctions, just expulsion. So, he couldn't have lied about sanctions.
The only thing I've heard is that they talked about was Flynn asked the ambassador for proportionate or scaled back response to the Obama sanctions due to what they claimed as Russian interference of the election. As I understand it, this was done by Obama to 1. intentionally frick up diplomatic relations with Russia as a "frick you" on the way out and 2. cause the perception that any easing of sanctions was more evidence that Trump has been colluding and cozying up with the Kremlin and provide more fodder for impeachment/media hysteria.
This post was edited on 5/22/20 at 9:40 am
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:40 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Bongino keeps hitting on a point that there was never any discussions of sanctions, just expulsion. So, he couldn't have lied about sanctions.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate on this point. There may not be a clear cut distinction in everyone’s mind between the “expulsions” and “sanctions”.
Yes, they are different. And from the snippets we’ve heard, it seems that Flynn saw the expulsions and separate from the sanctions, but some might argue that the expulsions were a form of sanction. And so if the agent asked Flynn if he talked to Kysliak about sanctions it might have been reasonable able to assume that the agent was asking about all possible sanctions including expulsions. The context matters.
So, is that it? Is that the lie? Is that how the conversation went down in that “gotcha” trap of an interview in the hallway, a week after inauguration?
“Hey Buddy, Hey Flynny Ole Pal! We picked up some info about a call with Kysliak. Did you talk about the sanctions with him back in 12/29?”
“Nope? Not sanction. Never talked about sanctions.”
“(Got Heem!!)“
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:46 am to upgrayedd
The FBI had already wire tapped and recorded the conversations. There are huge holes in the entire investigation.
1. No reading of rights or informing Flynn that everything he said was on the record. That is illegal and the FBI knows it.
2. Every interview, every 302, they were coming to the same conclusion ....Flynn did nothing wrong.
3. Now we know that Strzok changed the 302 with the assistance of Page. Page does not want to go to prison ...Strzok is on his own in this one. Yates confirmed thatshe had the copy of the original 302. It's gone ...Someone went to great extremes to conceal the records
4. Flynn reaches a point to where the FBI, with nothing in the basket to use to indict him ...threatens to go after his son ...Prosecutorial misconduct.
There will be people going to jail ...it won't be Flynn.
If I am McCabe, Ohr, Rosenstein, Comey or Strzok. I'm having nightmares at night. Brennan gets done if he directed his staff to conceal or hide records ...otherwise, he's just a loud mouthed fiend and nothing more. Admiral Rogers, Flynn and whoever turns for a "get of jail free card" ...decide how this goes down.
In the Durham interviews ...it becomes a matter of who turns and makes a deal to stay out of prison.
1. No reading of rights or informing Flynn that everything he said was on the record. That is illegal and the FBI knows it.
2. Every interview, every 302, they were coming to the same conclusion ....Flynn did nothing wrong.
3. Now we know that Strzok changed the 302 with the assistance of Page. Page does not want to go to prison ...Strzok is on his own in this one. Yates confirmed thatshe had the copy of the original 302. It's gone ...Someone went to great extremes to conceal the records
4. Flynn reaches a point to where the FBI, with nothing in the basket to use to indict him ...threatens to go after his son ...Prosecutorial misconduct.
There will be people going to jail ...it won't be Flynn.
If I am McCabe, Ohr, Rosenstein, Comey or Strzok. I'm having nightmares at night. Brennan gets done if he directed his staff to conceal or hide records ...otherwise, he's just a loud mouthed fiend and nothing more. Admiral Rogers, Flynn and whoever turns for a "get of jail free card" ...decide how this goes down.
In the Durham interviews ...it becomes a matter of who turns and makes a deal to stay out of prison.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:49 am to Jimbeaux
Full Interview Transcript of AG Barr Discussing Dropping the Flynn Case…
Is this the "lie" that Flynn told the FBI?
quote:
And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies. And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, “Don’t escalate.” And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.
Is this the "lie" that Flynn told the FBI?
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:50 am to therick711
quote:
Van Grack made a secret deal with the Covington attorneys to not charge Flynn, but he did not want it disclosed because if Flynn provided evidence against Trump he did not want it tainted. We found this out when Covington "found" more file materials that should have been provided to Flynn's new counsel.
i thought you guys were saying it was hidden from Flynn
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i thought you guys were saying it was hidden from Flynn
I see. Let me clarify, Van Grack wanted it hidden from the Court and the public so it had to be done off the books, which seems to be a theme here.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:59 am to Jimbeaux
He said he and Kislyak didn't discuss sanctions.
But he sorta did (but really didn't)... in passing.
Something along the lines of: (I'm paraphrasing here with some logical guesswork as we don't have the exact transcript, only media reports)
Kislyak: "If we do as you ask with regards to Israel at the UN counsel, what can you do for us about the new sanctions Obama just imposed?"
Flynn (from the beach with a few cocktails in him): "Just don't vote for that thing at the UN counsel and we'll talk more about sanctions after the inauguration."
And don't forget, McCabe/Strzok/Comey/lord knows who else, already had a printout of the exact entire transcript of this conversation, with Flynn illegally unmasked. So they knew the answers to all these questions already. They knew he had done nothing wrong in the discussion. Even asking for the favor Re: Israel wasn't illegal (maybe unethical, but not illegal).
And then after it was reported in the media just days later that he supposedly lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions (clearly this was leaked by Strozk or McCabe), VP Pence supposedly asked Flynn if he and Kislyak discussed sanctions and he told Pence, "No, absolutely not."
And this when it gets fuzzy. Either Pence was given a copy of the transcript or Comey told him he did discuss sanctions and they were going to charge him with lying to the FBI. Because out of the blue about 2 weeks later, Trump fires Flynn, and the media claims it was because they confirmed he lied to Pence.
But I'm not sure that's the truth. I think Rinse Penis just told Trump to cut bait and get rid of the headache/baggage, and Trump reluctantly did so. Because Pence never formally admitted Flynn lied to him. This was just a media rumor, as far as I can tell.
The prevailing theory at this point is that the FBI insisted they discussed sanctions while Flynn disagreed. Flynn then stupidly hires a law firm directly linked to Eric Holder (still don't get why he did this), and they apparently tell him the FBI has him dead to rights.
This is when the FBI also supposedly threatens to go after Flynn's son on some bogus "didn't file as an agent of a foreign country" bullshite. And shortly after, Flynn plea's guilty to lying to the FBI.
Needless to say, they clearly didn't REALLY discuss sanctions. They certainly didn't discuss particulars. And it certainly wasn't a worse discussion than Obama himself had on camera caught hot-mic'd with the then Russian Ambassador back in 2008.
Flynn got entrapped and railroaded, and all these dirty cops deserve to be sued for millions and then put in jail.
But he sorta did (but really didn't)... in passing.
Something along the lines of: (I'm paraphrasing here with some logical guesswork as we don't have the exact transcript, only media reports)
Kislyak: "If we do as you ask with regards to Israel at the UN counsel, what can you do for us about the new sanctions Obama just imposed?"
Flynn (from the beach with a few cocktails in him): "Just don't vote for that thing at the UN counsel and we'll talk more about sanctions after the inauguration."
And don't forget, McCabe/Strzok/Comey/lord knows who else, already had a printout of the exact entire transcript of this conversation, with Flynn illegally unmasked. So they knew the answers to all these questions already. They knew he had done nothing wrong in the discussion. Even asking for the favor Re: Israel wasn't illegal (maybe unethical, but not illegal).
And then after it was reported in the media just days later that he supposedly lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions (clearly this was leaked by Strozk or McCabe), VP Pence supposedly asked Flynn if he and Kislyak discussed sanctions and he told Pence, "No, absolutely not."
And this when it gets fuzzy. Either Pence was given a copy of the transcript or Comey told him he did discuss sanctions and they were going to charge him with lying to the FBI. Because out of the blue about 2 weeks later, Trump fires Flynn, and the media claims it was because they confirmed he lied to Pence.
But I'm not sure that's the truth. I think Rinse Penis just told Trump to cut bait and get rid of the headache/baggage, and Trump reluctantly did so. Because Pence never formally admitted Flynn lied to him. This was just a media rumor, as far as I can tell.
The prevailing theory at this point is that the FBI insisted they discussed sanctions while Flynn disagreed. Flynn then stupidly hires a law firm directly linked to Eric Holder (still don't get why he did this), and they apparently tell him the FBI has him dead to rights.
This is when the FBI also supposedly threatens to go after Flynn's son on some bogus "didn't file as an agent of a foreign country" bullshite. And shortly after, Flynn plea's guilty to lying to the FBI.
Needless to say, they clearly didn't REALLY discuss sanctions. They certainly didn't discuss particulars. And it certainly wasn't a worse discussion than Obama himself had on camera caught hot-mic'd with the then Russian Ambassador back in 2008.
Flynn got entrapped and railroaded, and all these dirty cops deserve to be sued for millions and then put in jail.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
maybe for a sex offense with registration
I've been in federal court when pleas are being accepted. Without exception it takes that long.
I don't need to make the argument it was illegally coerced. The memo filed by the DOJ supporting the dismissal lays it out pretty clearly.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
whether he did lie or not has no importance after that
I assume you are speaking strictly from a legal procedure perspective, otherwise this statement couldn’t be more false.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:01 am to gthog61
Flynn’s sin was his apparent willingness to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Obama Regime’s signature foreign policy achievement
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
courts can find people in contempt on their own
We're talking about criminal contempt in federal court. It must be prosecuted by a US Attorney or an appointed attorney if the US Attorney declines the case, not the Court as is trying to be done here. Rule 42.
This post was edited on 5/22/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
b/c no matter what the lie was, he admitted to it as part of the plea
Flynn's plea was self preservation. It came after 9 months of federal government harassment that drove him to sell his house to pay legal fees and the threat of the federal government going after his son. He apparently weighed his options and decided a guilty plea with a sentence of 2 weeks was worth the price to get the federal government off his back.
But you knew he was coerced into a plea.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:07 am to Jimbeaux
How many of us remember what we ate four weeks ago. How many can remember every detail of a phone call a month ago especially when compared to an actual transcript. He had several calls during this period to the ambassador. Even the people screaming for his scalp have to agree he was pretty busy at the time.
Would you be as accurate in a causal conversation as opposed to under oath. How the questions were phrased would have an effect on how accurate you felt you needed to be.
I would like to see the transcripts to see if Comey and the gang are as corrupt as I’ve come to believe they are.
Things like the impeachment proved most people have their minds made up and view the same thing through different lens. I want it all to come out and be clearly defined so one side or the other has to admit they were wrong. Some never will but this nation needs to come together.
Maybe division is what Soros wants since a divided nation is easier to conquer.
Would you be as accurate in a causal conversation as opposed to under oath. How the questions were phrased would have an effect on how accurate you felt you needed to be.
I would like to see the transcripts to see if Comey and the gang are as corrupt as I’ve come to believe they are.
Things like the impeachment proved most people have their minds made up and view the same thing through different lens. I want it all to come out and be clearly defined so one side or the other has to admit they were wrong. Some never will but this nation needs to come together.
Maybe division is what Soros wants since a divided nation is easier to conquer.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:08 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I assume you are speaking strictly from a legal procedure perspective, otherwise this statement couldn’t be more false.
not really
he probably lied when he admitted to lying. at that point, why does the underlying "lie" have any meaning?
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
I’ve read a lot of misconceptions here on this topic and how it all works. I don’t know enough about the details in the Flynn case to take a position one way or another, but a few things that need to be clarified about federal criminal courts:
1. Whenever you agree to plea, it is standard that you sign an extensive plea agreement. In the plea agreement, you are swearing to the court in writing that a certain statement of “facts” is true and correct, as well as that you have not been threatened or coerced to plea.
2. If a defendant signs the plea agreement, and enters a plea before a judge, the defendant is put under oath and asked multiple questions including whether they are knowingly entering a guilty plea, whether they are being coerced or threatened in any way, whether the written plea agreement contains the entirety of the agreement between the defense and prosecution, and whether the statement of facts presented to the court is true and correct.
3. Once the defendant goes through all of that, it is difficult to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing. It’s hard to argue that the defendant was now coerced, threatened, or did not actually commit the alleged acts because that means he lied to the court at the guilty plea (which is what I assume Sullivan refers to whenever he mentions “perjury”).
4. Although it is extremely rare for a defendant to successfully withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, it has happened in cases where prosecutorial misconduct has later been revealed. It is my understanding that this is the basis that the DOJ has agreed to drop charges, although not all of the misconduct has come to light.
5.
Again, I am not taking a side one way or the other, but to me the best argument Flynn has is not regarding threats against his son or secret side deals, it is in potential misconduct by the FBI investigators and the prosecutors over his case withholding exculpatory evidence.
1. Whenever you agree to plea, it is standard that you sign an extensive plea agreement. In the plea agreement, you are swearing to the court in writing that a certain statement of “facts” is true and correct, as well as that you have not been threatened or coerced to plea.
2. If a defendant signs the plea agreement, and enters a plea before a judge, the defendant is put under oath and asked multiple questions including whether they are knowingly entering a guilty plea, whether they are being coerced or threatened in any way, whether the written plea agreement contains the entirety of the agreement between the defense and prosecution, and whether the statement of facts presented to the court is true and correct.
3. Once the defendant goes through all of that, it is difficult to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing. It’s hard to argue that the defendant was now coerced, threatened, or did not actually commit the alleged acts because that means he lied to the court at the guilty plea (which is what I assume Sullivan refers to whenever he mentions “perjury”).
4. Although it is extremely rare for a defendant to successfully withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, it has happened in cases where prosecutorial misconduct has later been revealed. It is my understanding that this is the basis that the DOJ has agreed to drop charges, although not all of the misconduct has come to light.
5.
quote:
It takes about 45 minutes to an hour
quote:In State court, yes it is rare for pleas to take that long barring something such as registration requirements being read. However, it is not uncommon at all for pleas in federal court, especially for big cases, to take 45min to an hour. Depends on the judge and the type of case. I would say that for something this big, it is likely that the plea took a while to get through and very well could have lasted about 45 minutes to an hour.
Maybe for a sex offense with registration
Again, I am not taking a side one way or the other, but to me the best argument Flynn has is not regarding threats against his son or secret side deals, it is in potential misconduct by the FBI investigators and the prosecutors over his case withholding exculpatory evidence.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News