Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

This happens all the time with the FBI and DOJ.

You deliberately overcharge someone, and then do a plea bargain.  It saves the defendant a lot of time and money.  These kinds of criminal prosecutions can literally bankrupt someone.

Reportedly, Flynn has already spent a million.

[Jeff Carter]

25 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

 

Here's the link then. He thinks he's guity. So did the judge. Sorry.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

 

The government's arguments in the DC Flynn case currently before the courts with the new lawyers are effectively as stated above: Flynn agreed in the sentencing memorandum that he was guilty and therefore he is guilty.  But the presiding judge in the case currently running has not tossed the case or prevented Flynn's lawyers from seeking discovery, and so signing the document is not the final legal say-so. The indictment may yet be tossed, despite Flynn's signature.

Maria Butina has been sent back to Russia. She denies ever being an "agent" despite having signed a similar document. She says her choice was simple: agree to what the prosecution demanded or face fifteen years in prison. Certainly Flynn was faced with accepting the guilty plea or suffering a number of additional charges and a threat to ruin his son with FARA charges. 

[W. Niederhut]

40 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

W Niederhut - Flynn was not charged with lying "about" his contacts with Kisylak over the sanctions issue, he was charged with not sufficiently informing the FBI agents that this specific contact had occurred. There's a difference. Was Flynn hiding anything by the knowing or unknowing withholding of this information? The record says no. There was nothing illegal about the contact itself. The methods used to create the legal exposure for Flynn is what is now under the microscope in a DC court. What ensues may surprise you. And despite what you may have read, no "extensive 2016 campaign collusion with Russia" has yet been proven.

Bob Ness - there was nothing illegal about Papadopoulos' sending emails to Trump campaign regarding possible meetings with "Russians", nor was any of the related activity illegal,  and, in most instances we now know, the promises of such meetings were initiated by persons connected to western intelligence services and not by actual connected Russians. What he was eventually charged with can be easily referred to in the publicly available indictment and it amounts to inconsistencies over inconsequential matters. As do the charges against Flynn. What "crime" do you actually believe Flynn engaged in? His alleged "lying" in no way impeded the "normal process of the legal system", and neither did Papadopoulos. Neither the phone calls with Kisylak or the meetings with Mifsud amounted to anything which could be tied to "collusion", nor could the subject's initial inconsistencies be said to have impeded any investigation. The FBI, for example, talked to Mifsud shortly after they talked to George P. There is no indication of any leads being followed connected with Mifsud at any time after that interview. So, obviously, that road led nowhere.  The criticism of the use of the 'process charges" is not exclusively a Republican talking point, and was best repudiated as "petty" by veteran DC lawyer John Dowd last February in an interview with ABC - "Because Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates, I mean, look what Bob's doing, what I call nickel-dime process crimes...it's been a waste of time. And it's been petty. And it's been bureaucratic. And you don't need to do that. When you're dealing at this level, when you're dealing at this level, you're playing' the World Series, okay? And you don't-- you don't-- you don't get down with the petty stuff here."

Oh, come on now, J.C.  Give the pretzel logic a break.

First you denied the detailed evidence about Russian hacking of our 2016 election for Trump, (including the cache of 35,000 Facebook ads I referenced) and now this!

But Flynn's own transition team colleague (McFarland) said in a December 2016 Email that the team needed to reassure the Kremlin about Obama's 12/16 sanctions!

Why else would Flynn have lied to the FBI about his concurrent phone calls with Kislyak?

And why was Trump so hell-bent on shutting down the FBI's nascent investigation of Flynn's Russian contacts?

[James DiEugenio]

I just posted a link about KT.  It says she was being sarcastic because at that time, the whole media was enthralled with Russia Gate.

The whole thing about lying to the FBI is being challenged by Sidney Powell on the basis that the FBI changed the 302.

Mueller could not prove anything about collusion in two years.  And he looked like a rather doddering old man before congress.

So now the Dems are going to the grand jury testimony to try and salvage something from Russiagate.

I thought this was now about Biden Gate?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The criticism of the use of the 'process charges" is not exclusively a Republican talking point, and was best repudiated as "petty" by veteran DC lawyer John Dowd last February in an interview with ABC - "Because Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates, I mean, look what Bob's doing, what I call nickel-dime process crimes...it's been a waste of time. And it's been petty. And it's been bureaucratic. And you don't need to do that. When you're dealing at this level, when you're dealing at this level, you're playing' the World Series, okay? And you don't-- you don't-- you don't get down with the petty stuff here."

Why is Jeff Carter reluctant to mention that John Dowd was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018?

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Oh, come on now, J.C.  Give the pretzel logic a break.

First you denied the detailed evidence about Russian hacking of our 2016 election for Trump, (including the cache of 35,000 Facebook ads I referenced) and now this!

But Flynn's own transition team colleague (McFarland) said in a December 2016 Email that the team needed to reassure the Kremlin about Obama's 12/16 sanctions!

Why else would Flynn have lied to the FBI about his concurrent phone calls with Kislyak?

And why was Trump so hell-bent on shutting down the FBI's nascent investigation of Flynn's Russian contacts?

The “detailed evidence of Russian hacking” is in dispute, mostly by Americans from across the political spectrum, many with intelligence backgrounds, challenging the veracity of the said evidence. The “35,000 Facebook ads” are not evidence of “Russian hacking”. It was an undisputed above board ad buy done by a commercial marketing firm from Russia. Mueller’s description of the firm as a front for Russian military intelligence is currently being challenged in a DC court. I don’t actually “deny” the evidence, I point out that the evidence has been reasonably challenged.

Flynn didn’t lie about phone calls to Kisylak, he just didn’t mention them. Whether his failure to mention them deserved legal sanction is currently being argued in DC courts. No connection to collusion is evident from those calls, and the US government has the full content of all these calls and concurrent email traffic.

Why shouldn’t the Trump transition team have been concerned about Obama’s12/16 announcement? It initiated an unprecedented expression of hostility to the Russian Federation, based on unproven allegations, and would have the potential effect of damaging policy initiatives campaigned on by the President-elect.

Whatever Trump’s reasons for concern over an FBI investigation of Flynn, that it might disclose a collusion conspiracy with the Russians wasn’t one of them because such conspiracy involving Flynn did not in fact ever happen, as the developed record clearly shows.

Pretzel logic?

[Cliff Varnell]

35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mueller could not prove anything about collusion in two years.  And he looked like a rather doddering old man before congress.

Useful Idiots of Team Fascist reveal themselves by the Trump talking points they repeat endlessly.

Mueller proved plenty about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. right after Trump prompted them.

Trump openly solicited Russian aid when he asked, " Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."  Team Fascist would have us believe that it was a coincidence that Russian hackers went after Hillary's e-mails right after.

"Collusion" is not a crime, evidently.  Mueller said Donald Trump Jr. was too ignorant of the law to know that he was guilty of conspiracy when he, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russian operatives with the understanding they would receive dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates met with a Russian operative and Manafort business partner Konstantin Kilimnick and turned over internal polling data for delivery to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Mueller's demeanor in his House testimony was cautious, inconsistent with DiEugenio's accusation that Mueller was going out of his way to see Trump impeached.

Mueller bent over backwards for a blatantly guilty Trump.

 

[Jeff Carter]

46 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why is Jeff Carter reluctant to mention that John Dowd was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018?

Nice one. A superficial partisan rejection of one of the more interesting and insightful observations of this sordid affair.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

Your entire take on this topic has been superficial and partisan, to the extent that you simply don't know what you are talking about - as your above characterization of Manafort's business partner Kliminik as a "Russian operative" confirms.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The government's arguments in the DC Flynn case currently before the courts with the new lawyers are effectively as stated above: Flynn agreed in the sentencing memorandum that he was guilty and therefore he is guilty.  But the presiding judge in the case currently running has not tossed the case or prevented Flynn's lawyers from seeking discovery, and so signing the document is not the final legal say-so. The indictment may yet be tossed, despite Flynn's signature.

Maria Butina has been sent back to Russia. She denies ever being an "agent" despite having signed a similar document. She says her choice was simple: agree to what the prosecution demanded or face fifteen years in prison. Certainly Flynn was faced with accepting the guilty plea or suffering a number of additional charges and a threat to ruin his son with FARA charges. 

If Flynn is as innocent as you're suggesting what additional charges could there be? The post I gave you was George's admission. Does this somehow pertain to Flynn or did you not notice and/or read the prosecution's summary? George was sentenced to 14 days. Something along the lines of what I would call reasonable for what he plead guilty to. Not exactly the guillotine, yes?

She denies it? So does every single paid member of the SVR, GRU ad infinitum. I've tried to tell you guys who support these theories that the absence of a business card that states "Joe Schmoeski, Russian Spy" doesn't equate with "ain't no Russian Spy". Mifsud for example could be an informant for any number of competing agencies all over the world. A lot of these clowns run intelligence mills in fact and produce garbage for consumption by agencies for cash considerations. Remember Curve Ball? It's quite common, to the point that agencies have to carefully vet these people and grade them as to their legitimacy. Steele for example is a trusted source and has been for a long time. Some sources such as Curve Ball were used precisely because they knew he wasn't but wanted the information to provide cover (Iraq War).

How could Maria be sentenced to 15 years in prison for doing something they could not prove in court? What you're saying is ridiculous because they would have to sentence her to 15 years for what she plead guilty to! There are guidelines judges follow in sentencing and they pretty much do. If not, they have to do a bunch of extra explaining and so forth and they're loathe to do that. They also HATE WITH A PASSION when their rulings get overturned. A judge would stake the prosecutor to the wall for that kind of behavior. I have no idea where you're from (East Germany?) but judges wont let a prosecutor here say to a defendent "Here, sign this or you're going to prison for 15 years!" They actually have to prove a case with charges and all that tricky technical stuff like evidence.

Now if she did a bunch of illegal stuff that if charged and found guilty she faced 15 years in prison we have a different story.

And so do you!

It means she was a Russian spy who did a bunch of espionage worth 15 years in prison!

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bob Ness

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

Do you really not understand how a plea bargain works? Or what deliberate overcharging is?

https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wasnt-russian-spy

Edited October 29, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Nice one. A superficial partisan rejection of one of the more interesting and insightful observations of this sordid affair.

So was it superficial partisanship which prevented you from making the full disclosure that John Dowd had been Trump's lawyer?

Why would you intentionally leave out that little detail?

Quote

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

Your entire take on this topic has been superficial and partisan, to the extent that you simply don't know what you are talking about - as your above characterization of Manafort's business partner Kliminik as a "Russian operative" confirms.

Rick Gates testified that Kilimnick took possession of the internal polling data in order to pass it off to Oleg Deripaska.

Why Did Manafort Share Trump Polling? Mueller Leaves Clues

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/manafort-kilimnik-polling

What specifically are you denying here, Jeff -- that it was an operation designed to put polling data into the hands of a Russian oligarch?

What part of that do you challenge?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Bob Ness]

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

Do you really not understand how a plea bargain works? Or what deliberate overcharging is?

Haha! Been there baby! Been there! And that's why lawyers go in front of judges and they give the final ruling. It works Jim, it really does.

As I said to JC judges aren't going to let a prosecutor run rough shod over a defendant especially in a high profile case where their reputations are on the line. I've personally seen this happen and know exactly how it works. Many of the players, even in these larger cases, know each other and what is expected of them professionally. We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional.

Everything you and several others have been posting reads like I would expect a criminal or their lawyer to claim. To wit:

I was entrapped!
It was a set up!
He/she was working for the cops!
They can't prove it but they're running it up the flag pole anyway!
They're snowing us with paper so we can't respond!
The cops made me do it! I wouldn't have if it weren't for them!

Bad breaks and misunderstandings. Sure. But it still comes down to this:

Did they sign the little paper saying "Yep I did it!" or not?

Trust me on this one Jim, there are very few people who stand before a judge who are not guilty. It happens. Some jurisdictions are bad. Other circumstances enter in.

But almost all of the people standing before a judge are guilty of what they're charged with. The process is rigged as carefully as possible so they don't even charge or convict somebody of something they didn't do. As cynical as we are all at times the judges, agents, attorneys etc etc are mostly good people who are dedicated to doing what's right.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The “detailed evidence of Russian hacking” is in dispute, mostly by Americans from across the political spectrum, many with intelligence backgrounds, challenging the veracity of the said evidence. The “35,000 Facebook ads” are not evidence of “Russian hacking”. It was an undisputed above board ad buy done by a commercial marketing firm from Russia. Mueller’s description of the firm as a front for Russian military intelligence is currently being challenged in a DC court. I don’t actually “deny” the evidence, I point out that the evidence has been reasonably challenged.

Fair enough it's being challenged. Who else would buy 35,000 Facebook Ads in Russia? I suspect evidence of the originator of the purchase won't be revealed in a courtroom because it has something to do with NSA intercepts or some other source. Perhaps the indicted Russian SVR members (alleged) would like to appear in court to clear that up?

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Flynn didn’t lie about phone calls to Kisylak, he just didn’t mention them. Whether his failure to mention them deserved legal sanction is currently being argued in DC courts. No connection to collusion is evident from those calls, and the US government has the full content of all these calls and concurrent email traffic.

This I believe was violating the Logan act.

 

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Why shouldn’t the Trump transition team have been concerned about Obama’s12/16 announcement? It initiated an unprecedented expression of hostility to the Russian Federation, based on unproven allegations, and would have the potential effect of damaging policy initiatives campaigned on by the President-elect.

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country? Maybe that is what everyone was so concerned about? But Trump and his campaign and transition team were attempting to reward them? Jeez. Jeff I don't see why you defend this. It laughable - you sound like Putin et al are bunch school girls being treated so unfairly - it's an outrage!

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Whatever Trump’s reasons for concern over an FBI investigation of Flynn, that it might disclose a collusion conspiracy with the Russians wasn’t one of them because such conspiracy involving Flynn did not in fact ever happen, as the developed record clearly shows.

Flynn was floating olive branches to the adversary country he knew absolutely was trying to manipulate our election after having done so elsewhere. Fact.

[James DiEugenio]

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

[Jeff Carter]

Bob Ness. - I wouldn’t question your experiences in the legal realm, but I would ask how they are relevant. The indictments in question cite only minor / inconsequential inconsistencies (“lies”) which have no bearing on the larger question of alleged collusion. Technically, these inconsistencies could be construed as a misrepresentation and therefore technically violate the law against being less than truthful with government agents. Papadopoulos and Flynn both signed a document conceding exactly that, on the advice of their attorneys. Whether they did so because they truly felt remorse over their actions, or whether because they were convinced the least worst outcome was to follow the advice given - I do not know personally, but their behaviour afterwards suggests the latter.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Who else would buy 35,000 Facebook Ads in Russia? 

A commercial marketing firm would purchase the ads. It’s officially conceded in the Mueller Report that the IRA is a commercial marketing firm. The GRU angle is an extra twist which is as yet an unproven allegation. The allegation is currently disputed in a DC courtroom. There is no indication of “secret evidence” that cannot be revealed, I.e. no classified references.

Quote

This I believe was violating the Logan act.

The Logan Act had been mothballed for about two centuries and was not an active guideline. No one has been indicted from the Trump team for contact with foreign persons. Flynn has not been indicted for violating the Logan Act. There is no law or precedent preventing contact between an elected transition team and foreign nationals.

Quote

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country

How is this so? What attack? $100,000 in Facebook ads over a two year period is what sort of attack? Why are you so upset about it? It was likely a clickbait scheme which has been wildly misconstrued. The DNC email “hack” indictment is hotly contested, mostly by Americans themselves. Nothing about that yet rises to the level of verifiable fact. Why are you outraged?

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Flynn was floating olive branches to the adversary country he knew absolutely was trying to manipulate our election after having done so elsewhere. Fact.

It’s not a “fact”.  The “Russia manipulated our election” story remains entirely murky even years later, even after a very very thorough investigation. What’s the basis for your conclusions? How do you know what Flynn “knew absolutely”? Do you feel the Trump transition team was obliged to view Russia as an “adversary country”?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jeff Carter