Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob,

Flynn was not charged with any conversation with Pence.  If prosecutors charged every administration official with lying to another one, there would be no administrations.

I know this and do not expect they would. My point is he finds it easy to mislead regarding these subjects.

 

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, if you cannot see the unethical practice of planning to indict someone over an interview but not telling him to bring a lawyer, then this is what I am talking about.  Namely the process, the ends justifying the means. 

Jim this is standard procedure for every investigation. This is the SOP that I swiped from Marcy Wheeler's site just because I don't have time to type it up. I've been through these. I take it you haven't.

To make her case that her client — who, she herself emphasizes, served for 30 years as an intelligence officer and so was no spring chicken about the ways of the world — nevertheless got duped by evil FBI officers attempting to entrap him by his own actions, Powell attacks the following utterly routine parts of FBI investigations:

  1. People who know things relevant to an investigation are interviewed by FBI Agents, working in twos, who then write up a 302
  2. The FBI doesn’t tape non-custodial interviews, though probably should record more than they do, as 302s can be dodgy
  3. FBI Agents often don’t take notes while they’re interviewing someone, because that distracts from the interview
  4. The FBI would prefer to talk to witnesses — all witnesses! — without lawyers present
  5. FBI will prepare for interviews to ensure they are as useful as possible
  6. FBI often watches how suspects respond to learning about potential criminal evidence against them
  7. Prosecutors try to get suspects to plead guilty by showing them some, but not the most sensitive, damning information they have about them
  8. The FBI usually doesn’t tell people it is investigating that it is investigating them
  9. The FBI is allowed to open investigations when they obtain evidence that might indicate a crime — they don’t have to wait until they have evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt someone is guilty before they try to collect evidence to try to figure out whether a crime has been committed and if so by whom
  10. People considering pleading guilty meet with prosecutors before doing so to lay out what evidence they’ll be willing to share for a lenient plea deal
  11. Even for cases that may one day end up in Emmet Sullivan’s court, suspects don’t get to review all the evidence the government has against them before they’re charged and even in Sullivan’s court, defendants only get to review the evidence that would be helpful to their defense (or sentencing) pertaining to the crimes in question, not other bad deeds
  12. When the FBI thinks a hostile foreign country is trying to interfere with the United States, it investigates
  13. People who work at DOJ work with other people who work at DOJ

Effectively, Powell’s argument is that none of these very routine things that happen with every single FBI investigation should have happened with an investigation of her client. She has a point that some of them — especially the way FBI writes up 302s — should be fixed. But that doesn’t mean her client is anymore innocent than any of the thousands of other defendants treated similarly.

I can't explain it any better.

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And that is not all in this case.  If you read the Powell filing, she argues that documents were altered. Even Sally Yates, who ended up going along with it, had problems with what McCabe had done.

As explained above, the interviews aren't recorded and variations in 302s are common. It does not change whether Flynn plead guilty to the charges or not. All relevant evidence was presented to Flynn and his lawyers before the plea was entered for their comment. They saw it before the plea was entered into. Either way, Flynn said "Yeah I did it." She's trying desperately to undo the agreement and I've already speculated on why I think that (she's posing).

Sullivan has seen the classified material that she hasn't and she could very well be burning her client because that evidence appears to be so damning the judge insisted the sentencing be delayed to help with receiving leniency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes it does Bob, and that is why he brought in a new lawyer.

A perjury trap is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

A good lawyer would have smelled it coming in.

And the interrogation would have ended right there. And the indictment  would not have happened.

As per the 302, there is a difference between rewriting a report for grammar and flow and making a material alteration.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

If Powell is granted more discovery, this will really get interesting.  Flynn was not served well by his previous lawyers.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Yes it does Bob, and that is why he brought in a new lawyer.

A perjury trap is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

A lawyer would have been able to smell it coming in.

And the interrogation would have ended right there. And the indictment  would not have happened.

 

Then my question is this:

Can you have a perjury charge against you by telling the truth? What is the case to bring against you (rhetorical you that is) after you have told the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the addition to my post as above:

 

As per the 302, there is a difference between rewriting a report for grammar and flow and making a material alteration.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

If Powell is granted more discovery, this will really get interesting.  Flynn was not served well by his previous lawyers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often make the mistake of assuming the news that I read is also showing up on platforms I don't read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You missed the addition to my post as above:

 

As per the 302, there is a difference between rewriting a report for grammar and flow and making a material alteration.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

If Powell is granted more discovery, this will really get interesting.  Flynn was not served well by his previous lawyers.

 

Flynn made the matter moot by stating unequivocally that he did the crime. If the notes stated such and the 302 stated something different then that should have been apparent to all, including his defense attorneys before he signed his plea agreement. My guess is that he carved a deal because there was worse (Turkey anyone?) around the corner and that's why Sullivan was refusing leniencey in sentencing.

My point from before still stands. The Hell's Angels don't get read their Miranda Rights from investigators until such time as they are arrested, detained and/or charged. That would imperil the lives of the investigators and cause the subject to flee or cover their wrong doing. Flynn's a big boy and knows well he doesn't have to say anything (and shouldn't) and the idea that investigators (either uniformed or under cover) should announce to subjects or suspects of an investigation what they're doing and who they are is ludicrous. Flynn knew who he was talking to and why he should be careful. He's been through it before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert says: Calif. Rep. Katie Hill (D) just resigned. Presumably because of the pictures of her brushing her employees hair in the nude, or smoking a bomb,

Smoking a bomb, Pops? Does that mean she's a terrorist?  I realize it's a bit counter culture for you Robert, but she was smoking a "bong'.  You might take a break from  the computer and try it some time. But of course there's always the danger you might ask yourself why you're doing what you're doing.I'm sure if she was a Republican man, it would be no problem. She actually hails from Santa Clarita where they are having that fire.

Hey Robert, I was thinking, what if Trump/Rudy have been  actively pursuing one of your conspiracies that you've posted on this very forum?
You never know
That would be kinda awesome!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 11:49 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Ah ... tKremlin Octopus" conspiracy theory. I think I prefer Cliff calling everyone a fascist.

Best to everyone. The next year or so will be a crazy ride.

There are plenty of Useful Idiot non-fascists on Team Fascism.

Like those who rail against Ukrainian fascists but utter nary a peep about Trump's attempt to overthrow the American system of checks and balances.

Have there been any denunciations of Trump's family separation policy on Kennedys and King or Black Op Radio

Or the Muslim ban? 

Or the removal of regulations protecting the environment or consumers? 

Or Trump's attempts to take health insurance away from millions?

Or Trump's insistence that neither he nor any of his associates can be investigated while he's in office?

Or Trump turning the Dept. of Justice into an arm of his re-election campaign?

Or Republican voter suppression campaigns that scrubbed millions of mostly minority voters from the voting rolls?

You guys (or whoever is the "everyone" Jeff Carter referred to above) can't even admit that Trump solicited foreign influence in American elections even though Trump committed this crime right out in the open.

You're like those on Team JFKA Cover-up who deny JFK was shot in the back at T3...Wait a minute, you and Jim DiEugenio are those guys too!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok we bandy about for the millionth time about the Steele Doctrine, even though it's at least mostly true. Or further examine the premises for which the Fisa warrants were issued,Ok it's interesting discussing the legalities or ethical problems such as the ends justifying the means but isn't it about as relevant now as going into the bona fides of the first whistle blower? Trump has admitted to using taxpayer money as leverage to further his election campaign. Period-Case Closed. Stop acting like Trump's a whiny victim of some Deep State.  He did it to himself.. The guys a loose canon. It's only about politics now.

This hardly needs to wind on for another 50 years.

Do those who think the Mueller probe produced nothing (except of course, 34 individual indictments, but none to the President himself, and yet  what kind of pussy investigation is this where 1)Mueller doesn't interview the President directly and 2) Mueller doesn't cross the line and investigate Trump's financial records?*  (Are you sure that's not the Deep State coup?) This is  certainly not the kind of pussy investigation designed to have any hope of finding the "G" spot!
Anyway, does anyone who thinks the Mueller investigation produced nothing really think with the more recent admission by Trump in the Ukraine incident that the premise for establishing the Mueller probe, that the POTUS may have sold out out or compromised our national interests to our enemies is now 1) more likely to have happened? or 2) less likely to have happened?
 
* financial records: Figure it out! Trump had 20 million dollars by the time he was 21, and inherited over 400 million from his Father over the course off his lifetime. Still, he came back to his Father to bail him out of trouble twice in his career  and ended declaring bankruptcy 6 times! And his son, Donald Trump Junior said in 2006. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” .
Given all the bankruptcies, to those with even the most threadbare financial literacy. Is it at all hard to imagine that as major banks in America stopped lending Trump money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Like just maybe Russian oligarchs, as his son has said?  And of course, we also know that many of these oligarchs also have ties to Putin.
 
 Is there any other Trump supporter, apologist, or Deep State sleuth who can revive their childhood drawing book talent for dot connecting?
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob:

He is trying to take back his plea with a new lawyer and she is trying to get it all thrown out as a malicious prosecution.

Andrew:

Please. In my original article which started all this, I specifically stated that I do not equate Trump with JFK.  And I really do not think that anyone who knows anything about Kennedy and his presidency would do that.  But in this thread what I have been trying to say is that people who know what happened with the Warren Commission and the HSCA, should have an interest in this.  Why?  Because we should be interested in how the process has been corrupted.  I did not at all like Dick Nixon.  But I also did not like what the CIA did to him with the help of the Washington Post and Sy Hersh at the NY Times. From there the  rest of the media just jumped on the bandwagon. And then, ten years later, along comes Jim Hougan, and he asks:  Why did McCord tape a door twice, knowing the guard had removed the first one? And by asking that key question, he unveiled a whole new alternative scenario to what actually happened.

And that is the way its been with all the scandals I have listed above.  The MSM screws up the story, at times deliberately, and we do not find out the true facts until much later.  And meanwhile, the system corrodes even further.

So no Andrew. I do not at all equate Trump with Kennedy.  But I do think that the people on this forum should be interested in how the justice system plays out in another presidential case.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Ness:  Can you have a perjury charge against you by telling the truth? What is the case to bring against you (rhetorical you that is) after you have told the truth?

 

One could argue that Papadopoulos told the truth when he described Mifsud as a “nobody” - it certainly seems his status now - but that characterization earned Papadopoiulos one indictment for “lying”. He was also indicted for getting a date wrong by two weeks, and for not being exactly precise about when he commenced his stint with the Trump campaign. Flynn, for his part, received an indictment for “lying” because he did not volunteer information about a phone call. This is part of the generally poor reporting on these issues - most people do not understand that the indictments for “lying” do not refer to materially incorrect answers to direct questions, they refer to omission or imprecision during “casual conversations” with federal agents. The lack of counsel during these interviews leads directly to the indictments. A lawyer, in Papadopoulos’ case, would have advised him to not identify a precise date without being certain, or would have sought a legal definition to what would be understood as “joining” the Trump campaign before allowing the client to describe. Persons may not understand that a “casual conversation”  without counsel may later be combed through by federal agents seeking inconsistencies which could trigger legal exposure.

What Mueller’s indictments make plain is his team had very extensive access to the content of emails, texts, and phone calls of everyone swept up by the investigation. This is because all electronic communications by everybody are swept up and held in perpetuity, and can be reviewed by federal agents and used against a targeted person should circumstances permit. This represents a rather extreme tilting of the justice scale to favour the State, particularly if a prosecutor chooses to utilize “nickel and dime” process charges to move an investigation forward, as Mueller did. In both Papadopoulos and Flynn’s cases, the “lying” they were charged with had nothing whatsoever to do with any “Russian collusion” conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob Ness:  Can you have a perjury charge against you by telling the truth? What is the case to bring against you (rhetorical you that is) after you have told the truth?

 

One could argue that Papadopoulos told the truth when he described Mifsud as a “nobody” - it certainly seems his status now - but that characterization earned Papadopoiulos one indictment for “lying”. He was also indicted for getting a date wrong by two weeks, and for not being exactly precise about when he commenced his stint with the Trump campaign. Flynn, for his part, received an indictment for “lying” because he did not volunteer information about a phone call. This is part of the generally poor reporting on these issues - most people do not understand that the indictments for “lying” do not refer to materially incorrect answers to direct questions, they refer to omission or imprecision during “casual conversations” with federal agents. The lack of counsel during these interviews leads directly to the indictments. A lawyer, in Papadopoulos’ case, would have advised him to not identify a precise date without being certain, or would have sought a legal definition to what would be understood as “joining” the Trump campaign before allowing the client to describe. Persons may not understand that a “casual conversation”  without counsel may later be combed through by federal agents seeking inconsistencies which could trigger legal exposure.

What Mueller’s indictments make plain is his team had very extensive access to the content of emails, texts, and phone calls of everyone swept up by the investigation. This is because all electronic communications by everybody are swept up and held in perpetuity, and can be reviewed by federal agents and used against a targeted person should circumstances permit. This represents a rather extreme tilting of the justice scale to favour the State, particularly if a prosecutor chooses to utilize “nickel and dime” process charges to move an investigation forward, as Mueller did. In both Papadopoulos and Flynn’s cases, the “lying” they were charged with had nothing whatsoever to do with any “Russian collusion” conspiracy.

Jeff,

      Flynn lied about his December 2016 phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak-- following the imposition of Obama's sanctions against Russia in response to the 2016 Russian election hacking.

      How is that not related to Trump's extensive 2016 campaign collusion with Russia?  Flynn's own Trump transition team colleague, McFarland, even wrote an Email in December of 2016 asserting that the Trump transition team needed to reassure the Kremlin about Obama's punitive sanctions, since "Russia has just thrown the election to Trump."

      Explain your "logic."

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 But in this thread what I have been trying to say is that people who know what happened with the Warren Commission and the HSCA, should have an interest in this.  Why?  Because we should be interested in how the process has been corrupted.  I did not at all like Dick Nixon.  But I also did not like what the CIA did to him with the help of the Washington Post and Sy Hersh at the NY Times.

Impeaching a President for lying about adultery in a deposition ruled unrelated to a settle civil suit -- the Lowest of Crimes -- was a corruption of "the process."

James Comey announcing a re-opened investigation into Hillary's e-mails was a corruption of the process.

Having William Barr publicly misrepresent the contents of the Mueller Report was a corruption of the process.

Seems Jim DiEugenio is highly selective about which processes he finds corrupt.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...