Mueller investigation

[Underseer]

FBI raids office of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/fbi-raids-the-office-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-nyt.html

• FBI agents raided the offices of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, on Monday.
• Agents reportedly seized evidence related to Cohen's payment of $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.
• Daniels has said the money was in exchange for her silence about her affair with Trump. The White House denies such an affair occurred.

Looks like the FBI did indeed notice the stuff about Stormy in the news. Looks like a bad day for Cohen, but he should have known that working for Trump would end badly for him, so no sympathy.

Which do you think is the likely outcome of this?

• Cohen will go to jail rather than flip on his boss.
• Cohen will flip on his boss to avoid jail time.
• Cohen will be pardoned by Trump
• Cohen isn't actually in any trouble because this is all Fake News. This is all part of a vast conspiracy agenda to convince you that Trump did something wrong! Trump can't have done anything wrong because he's so much smarter than everyone else! Why isn't the FBI investigating Hillary instead? Benghazi! Her email!!!!!!

 

[Elixir]

Now you're speculating

Yup. So are you. It's okay for you to pronounce your speculations as fact?

My speculations have been only what I proposed as scenarios of why Flynn might have lied and my simplistic example of how Flynn was charged. The facts are that he was charged with lying and nothing more.

Okay. We're equally free to speculate. Whether there were other charges threatened, which caused Flynn to choose to plead guilty rather than fight the charge that he lied, is also a matter for speculation. Personally, I think Flynn would have chosen to fight the lying charge unless Mueller had a lot more than that to hang over his head. As it is, he's going to have to deal with the boundless wrath of a giant vindictive orange sociopath as part of his agreement to co-operate with the Special Counsel. I don't think he'd have made that choice unless the other choice was even more threatening. Maybe he's protecting his son, though...

 

[poster]

My speculations have been only what I proposed as scenarios of why Flynn might have lied and my simplistic example of how Flynn was charged. The facts are that he was charged with lying and nothing more.

Okay. We're equally free to speculate. Whether there were other charges threatened, which caused Flynn to choose to plead guilty rather than fight the charge that he lied, is also a matter for speculation. Personally, I think Flynn would have chosen to fight the lying charge unless Mueller had a lot more than that to hang over his head. As it is, he's going to have to deal with the boundless wrath of a giant vindictive orange sociopath as part of his agreement to co-operate with the Special Counsel. I don't think he'd have made that choice unless the other choice was even more threatening. Maybe he's protecting his son, though...

As the article I offered points out, the FBI used it's authority as it's privledged to do, and the author opines that the FBI did the correct thing, leaning toward a Scalia position. I disagree that he should be charged, though I have no problem with the FBI learning of the lies and following up on them for discovery purposes.

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

 

[Sarpedon]

Wut?

You tell them truth or say nothing. The constitution protects silence, not lying.

 

[poster]

FBI raids office of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/fbi-raids-the-office-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-nyt.html

• FBI agents raided the offices of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, on Monday.
• Agents reportedly seized evidence related to Cohen's payment of $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.
• Daniels has said the money was in exchange for her silence about her affair with Trump. The White House denies such an affair occurred.

Looks like the FBI did indeed notice the stuff about Stormy in the news. Looks like a bad day for Cohen, but he should have known that working for Trump would end badly for him, so no sympathy.

Which do you think is the likely outcome of this?

• Cohen will go to jail rather than flip on his boss.
• Cohen will flip on his boss to avoid jail time.
• Cohen will be pardoned by Trump
• Cohen isn't actually in any trouble because this is all Fake News. This is all part of a vast conspiracy agenda to convince you that Trump did something wrong! Trump can't have done anything wrong because he's so much smarter than everyone else! Why isn't the FBI investigating Hillary instead? Benghazi! Her email!!!!!!

My guess is that Cohen probably expected this at some point. If he hadn't cleaned shit up, he's not very smart after all.

 

[Underseer]

My speculations have been only what I proposed as scenarios of why Flynn might have lied and my simplistic example of how Flynn was charged. The facts are that he was charged with lying and nothing more.

Okay. We're equally free to speculate. Whether there were other charges threatened, which caused Flynn to choose to plead guilty rather than fight the charge that he lied, is also a matter for speculation. Personally, I think Flynn would have chosen to fight the lying charge unless Mueller had a lot more than that to hang over his head. As it is, he's going to have to deal with the boundless wrath of a giant vindictive orange sociopath as part of his agreement to co-operate with the Special Counsel. I don't think he'd have made that choice unless the other choice was even more threatening. Maybe he's protecting his son, though...

As the article I offered points out, the FBI used it's authority as it's privledged to do, and the author opines that the FBI did the correct thing, leaning toward a Scalia position. I disagree that he should be charged, though I have no problem with the FBI learning of the lies and following up on them for discovery purposes.

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

First:

It's = contraction of "it is"
Its = possessive form of it

Second, I can't wait to hear your explanation for why Clinton had to be impeached for lying about a blow job, but Trump shouldn't be impeached for lying about a blow job, fucking, money laundering for Russian mobsters, and treason.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

Why should we be concerned about that? If you lie to the police during the course of an investigation, your being charged is a good thing.

Are you also annoyed that the fascist dictatorship America has become doesn't even let you smash the window of a store and run off with their stuff? You know who else had a government that arrested you for that? Hitler, that's who.

 

[poster]

Wut?

You tell them truth or say nothing. The constitution protects silence, not lying.

Very true. Flynn strikes me as a kind of Dirty Harry type guy and might not have been able to control himself. Don't forget, all this happened on the heels of a very chaotic and long campaign. The winners might have been feeling somewhat invincable. As for the lying and the constitution, I don't think lying is addressed, is it?

 

[Elixir]

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

Lying to cops has always been a risky thing to do. If material misrepresentations are made that are germane to the matter under investigation, that is a crime, and always has been. Even if the person being interrogated doesn't think it's a big deal, it's a big deal. Flynn didn't just fall off the turnip truck - if he chose a pea deal, it's because it's a better deal than what would have befallen him had he declined to accept it. And it wouldn't have been offered unless Flynn gave something up in return that was worth more to the investigators than Flynn's hide.

 

[Copernicus]

...

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

The law is clear, and Flynn had no excuse for what he did. Also, the specific lies he told were detailed in the judicial filing, and Flynn voluntarily admitted guilt while under the advice of the lawyer of his choice. His guilt is therefore proven in a court of law. I'm sure that he would appreciate your speculative efforts to exonerate him, but he got what he deserved in this case. And he may still be charged with other crimes. So everything depends on his cooperation with the investigation now. If Trump chooses to pardon him, then Flynn can still be charged with perjury, if he chooses to lie to the FBI again after he is pardoned.

 

[poster]

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

Why should we be concerned about that? If you lie to the police during the course of an investigation, your being charged is a good thing.

Are you also annoyed that the fascist dictatorship America has become doesn't even let you smash the window of a store and run off with their stuff? You know who else had a government that arrested you for that? Hitler, that's who.

It's the creep I was talking about.

 

[poster]

...

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

The law is clear, and Flynn had no excuse for what he did. Also, the specific lies he told were detailed in the judicial filing, and Flynn voluntarily admitted guilt while under the advice of the lawyer of his choice. His guilt is therefore proven in a court of law. I'm sure that he would appreciate your speculative efforts to exonerate him, but he got what he deserved in this case. And he may still be charged with other crimes. So everything depends on his cooperation with the investigation now. If Trump chooses to pardon him, then Flynn can still be charged with perjury, if he chooses to lie to the FBI again after he is pardoned.

That's one way of reading it, another is that there is nothing else at this point to charge him with and the deal is to ask the judge for leniency if he cooperates. As the article I pointed to says, the FBI cannot involk the “exculpatory no” doctrine since the Supreme Court decision, led by Scalia, to invalidate it. Do you agree Scalia was right on this and Bader-Ginsberg was wrong?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

Why should we be concerned about that? If you lie to the police during the course of an investigation, your being charged is a good thing.

Are you also annoyed that the fascist dictatorship America has become doesn't even let you smash the window of a store and run off with their stuff? You know who else had a government that arrested you for that? Hitler, that's who.

It's the creep I was talking about.

Charging people with lying to the police during the course of an investigation is not an example of "creep". It's an example of properly implementing a reasonable law.

 

[Artemus]

It's getting to the point in this country where you can't choose to fib to cops, even if the fib is benign. We all should be concerned about that.

Why should we be concerned about that? If you lie to the police during the course of an investigation, your being charged is a good thing.

Are you also annoyed that the fascist dictatorship America has become doesn't even let you smash the window of a store and run off with their stuff? You know who else had a government that arrested you for that? Hitler, that's who.

It's the creep I was talking about.

There's no creep. Just Google "History of obstruction of justice charges" and you'll see that the Flynn case would have been treated exactly the same way at any time in US history since the laws were first written.

If you actually want to educate yourself, please read Debunking the Perjury-Trap Myth, an actual peer-reviewed article that appeared in legal-study journal. Perhaps the most relevant line is

There are numerous cases in which the perjury-trap defense has been asserted. But there are no federal cases granting a motion to dismiss because of a perjury trap.

Either all the court cases cited in the article and all the opinions written by legal scholars and sitting judges and justices are wrong, or you are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My assertions aren't baseless, if they were Flynn would have been charged with more than lying. He wasn't.

That's less that circular.
Flynn made a deal. What he's charged with ANDwhat he's not charged with are part of that deal. We don't know what they have hanging over his head that makes him cooperate with the investigation.But simple logic says it's worse than the thing he admitted to.
That's exactly how deals work.

BTW, you started out fairly reasonable, so I thought you were worth conversing with, but you've become inconsiderate and insulting.

Really? Pointing out that you pretend to expertise where you don't know what you're talking about is insulting? Or is that inconsiderate?
I could give a fuck, really. Your whole argument falls apart with the fact that there's a plea deal. Your continued fight after that is just partisanship.

 

[poster]

It's the creep I was talking about.

Charging people with lying to the police during the course of an investigation is not an example of "creep". It's an example of properly implementing a reasonable law.

Here's what I fear could happen, and I've been told of similar examples by acquaintances of color:
Cop decides to question a person walking down the street for no apparent reason. The cop asks where the person is going? The person answers "to that house to see my mother". Cop says, "okay" and goes and knocks on the door, but mother isn't home. Instead, a male teen answers the door and tells the cop that, yes the house is the person's mother's house, though she's out food shopping. The cop becomes suspicious and aggitated, one thing leads to another, an argument ensues between the guy and the cop, and the patron is arrested, or shot. The patron and witnesses insists that he was stopped and questioned for no reason by the officer. The cop, in order to cover himself, says in his report that he was investigating a hit and run that occurred down the block a few days earlier and the patron lied to him. Why? Because he said he was going to see his mother and his mother was not at home so he could not have been going to see his mother. Shit like that does happen.

 

[poster]

Let's get something straight. I have never made the claim of being an expert on the law. I am an average US citizen trying to make hands and tales of the situation. I am not employed by any legal firm nor do I have any formal education in the law.

How about the rest of you that have been participating in this discussion? Any lawyers or trained legal minds among you?

 

[Elixir]

It's the creep I was talking about.

Charging people with lying to the police during the course of an investigation is not an example of "creep". It's an example of properly implementing a reasonable law.

Here's what I fear could happen, and I've been told of similar examples by acquaintances of color:
Cop decides to question a person walking down the street for no apparent reason. The cop asks where the person is going? The person answers "to that house to see my mother". Cop says, "okay" and goes and knocks on the door, but mother isn't home. Instead, a male teen answers the door and tells the cop that, yes the house is the person's mother's house, though she's out food shopping. The cop becomes suspicious and aggitated, one thing leads to another, an argument ensues between the guy and the cop, and the patron is arrested, or shot. The patron and witnesses insists that he was stopped and questioned for no reason by the officer. The cop, in order to cover himself, says in his report that he was investigating a hit and run that occurred down the block a few days earlier and the patron lied to him. Why? Because he said he was going to see his mother and his mother was not at home so he could not have been going to see his mother. Shit like that does happen.

You bet it does. It used to be worse - people who were the wrong color were often summarily killed if a cop didn't like what was happening, and there were zero repercussions. For a few decades, such behavior was frowned upon, and such incidents became somewhat less common and drew more attention. But starting in 2016, things started rapidly getting worse. It's worse now than ever in recent years, since racial profiling, prejudicial treatment based on race, and justice being meted out by nominal law enforcement officers are now tacitly endorsed by our nation's Commander in Chief. There was hope for a while that body-cams would be the end of that shit, but it turns out that body cams can be counted on to malfunction whenever cops get out of control. Cellphone cameras have allowed some incidents to come to light, but the overall trend in the Trump era is a regression toward early 20th century attitudes and behavior.
The solution is to get this corrupt regime out of power as soon as possible.

 

[poster]

My assertions aren't baseless, if they were Flynn would have been charged with more than lying. He wasn't.

That's less that circular.
Flynn made a deal. What he's charged with ANDwhat he's not charged with are part of that deal. We don't know what they have hanging over his head that makes him cooperate with the investigation.But simple logic says it's worse than the thing he admitted to.
That's exactly how deals work.

BTW, you started out fairly reasonable, so I thought you were worth conversing with, but you've become inconsiderate and insulting.

Really? Pointing out that you pretend to expertise where you don't know what you're talking about is insulting? Or is that inconsiderate?
I could give a fuck, really. Your whole argument falls apart with the fact that there's a plea deal. Your continued fight after that is just partisanship.

Where do you come up with the idea that I am disputing that Flynn made a plea deal? I'm not - he did. I'm just questioning why because it just isn't sitting well with me. But that just me, I am a person who is supicious of authority. I don/t follow any right wing or left wing news agencies for my information. I get my information from many sources that are independant.

The idea that I'm see here that since the FBI and an investigative process has been involked means there must be something there, is, well, pretty simplistic and shows conditioning. That's not me. Sorry!

 

[Elixir]

Where do you come up with the idea that I am disputing that Flynn made a plea deal?

Calm down, poster. Nobody thinks you are disputing the fact of Flynn's plea deal. What is evident in this thread though, is that you have no idea how plea deals work, why they are offered, or what is likely at stake. Nevertheless, you decline to accept the explanation of how plea deals work, and instead prefer a concoction of your own creation, which makes no sense and has no evident basis in reality.