Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

4 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. Read the prosecutor's brief regarding the dozens of  emails, conversations and so on assuring candidate Trump's team about his connections with Russians and meetings he wanted to set up with Putin. I just don't know where you get this stuff about Papadopulous being set up and was so innocent. For crying out loud he served 14 days not years. Judges and juries take into account extenuating circumstances and usually the sentence reflects those. In fact they most likely let him plea to lesser charges that would result in a lenient sentence rather than bother with more serious charges (which he tried to back out of once he and his sleazy wife figured they could get a pardon and cash in).

You and Jim keep using the ridiculous republican cover of "process charges" to imply they aren't of any consequence which is so naive it drives me nuts (ok, not a long drive I grant you...). Obstruction and lying to investigators is a VERY SERIOUS CRIME because it interferes with the normal process of the legal system and results in discussions like these! Because they are lying you have to go in after the fact to sort through all the crap!!! Do you understand how that can impede an investigation and have far reaching ramifications? Perhaps you should look into the JFKA and look at all the obfuscation in that case and maybe that will give you an idea.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I just don't know where you get this stuff about Papadopulous being set up and was so innocent.

Go read the part in his book about when he landed in Dulles and the FBI got bent-out-of-shape because he wasn't carrying the $10,000 in cash the Israeli fellow gave him in Cyprus.

Hilarious.

Here's the short version.

"I actually want Congress, Barr, Horowitz, and Huber to review the bills because I still have the bills and I think they are marked," Papadopoulos said. "These bills that are still in Athens right now must be examined by the investigators because I think they are marked and they're going to go all the way back to DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team." - George P.

Full Article

FYI - George Papadopoulos is a very common name Greek name, so if you are wondering if he is related the George Papadopoulos that fronted the CIA lead military coup d'état that took place in Greece on 21 April 1967, and ruled until 1974, we can neither deny or confirm at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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

 

George-P.jpg

  • Bob Mueller agrees to reduce the charges.
  • George P. agrees to plead guilty.
  • They both agree not to ever ask why George's "Italian" wife has a Romanian accent.
  • Everyone is happy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

George-P.jpg

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Bob Ness
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...