Reply With Quote
So why lie about the meeting being about adoptions? Jesus Darrin dumb as a box of rocks.Psst. Everyone had access to the emails in July. No super secretey decryption key needed.
But the other evidence can be ferreted out if one realizes collusion is not a crime. And what you fail to realize is The author is attempting to set parameters on what might and might not be relevant to the president actually committing any sort of crime (conspiracy to commit or hide a crime; obstruction of justice) that he might be charged with. This is outside the political realm and is important. So when the tweeting does start, one might slap it in TSA's face and mark the chalk board, but it might be totally outside any real legal ramifications; As has happened throughout this thread but not always. There are some gems.
And of course we don't know what the Justice Dept. has (Mueller specifically) They have been mostly leak free and the leaks that have occurred could be purposeful.But the article trims down what the Justice Dept needs to have quite nicely based on what has been presented so far.
So why lie about the meeting being about adoptions? Jesus Darrin dumb as a box of rocks.Psst. Everyone had access to the emails in July. No super secretey decryption key needed.
Darrin still missing the point. Stolen information was sent directly to Trump and Jr.
Oh and the fact that JR said there was no follow up email.
Darrin.
So what
Stolen information is also sent to the press.
And helps bring down people like Manafort.
Lordy!
What is the importance of this djohn?
Judge recuses in Michael Flynn case
President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, will face a different judge to be sentenced than the one who took Flynn’s guilty plea to a felony false statement charge last week, court records show.
Judge Emmet Sullivan was randomly assigned to take over the case after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself.
A court spokeswoman confirmed to POLITICO that the reassignment was due to Contreras' recusal, but said the court generally does not disclose the reason that a judge begged off the case.
Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Contreras was appointed by President Barack Obama.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...tencing-287001
spurraider21 I know you aren't an FISC expert but in your experience is it common for judges to recuse themselves and when they do what are some typical reasons?
Trump’s incriminating tweet obscures the facts surrounding an even more important story
The More Important Story
The media focus on Trump’s tweet has obscured the key facts underlying Flynn’s guilty plea, and Trump has no incentive to help the public see those facts clearly.
- In late December 2016, Trump’s national security adviser-designate Mike Flynn — in consultation with a senior official of the Trump transition team later identified as K. T. McFarland — spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about newly imposed US sanctions for election interference. Flynn’s mission was to persuade Kislyak that the Trump administration would reward Putin for a restrained response, and he succeeded.
- After his phone call with Kislyak, Flynn “spoke with senior members of the presidential transition team about [his] conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding the US sanctions and Russia’s decision not to escalate.” We don’t know if Flynn’s conversations included Vice President-elect Mike Pence, but Pence was chairman of the transition team.
- On Jan. 24, 2017, four days after the inauguration, the FBI interviewed Flynn. He lied, adhering to the White House line that Pence had established: Flynn’s discussion with Kislyak “had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”
- On Jan. 26, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates told White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to the vice president about his conversation with Kislyak and that US intelligence — and the Russians — considered him a blackmail risk.
- On Jan. 27, Trump invited FBI Director James Comey to dinner in the White House and asked for Comey’s “loyalty.”
- For more than two weeks, Flynn remained in the nation’s most sensitive national security post until The Washington Post broke the story about Yates’ warning to McGahn.
Then Trump and the White House said that Flynn was fired because he had lied to Pence about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak.
Properly considered, Trump’s tweet should bring into clear view the
enduring theme of the Trump-Russia investigation:
When facing questions related to Russia,
Team Trump answers with lies —
sometimes layers and layers of them.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/tru...e+Raw+Story%29
Easy to imagine that without WaPo breaking the Yates-McGroin story, Flynn would still be NSA.
Why have, are Trash and his mafiya constantly lying about Russia connections, Wikileaks?
lol, djohn
Preet Bharara has a different take on what Michael Flynn’s plea deal means for Trump
A former US attorney doesn’t think the light charge against Flynn necessarily means he’s singing like a bird to Mueller.
When Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation on Friday, many legal experts thought they knew what that meant.
“We know from public reports that Flynn has a ton of criminal exposure, and yet he’s pleading guilty to a relatively minor crime,” Savannah Law School professor Andy Wright told my colleague Sean Illing. “I’m confident Flynn is singing like a bird to Mueller.” (Eight other law professors made similar arguments to Illing.)
Not so sure: Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by President Trump earlier this year.
On the latest episode of his podcast, “Stay Tuned With Preet,” Bharara says he isn’t convinced that Flynn has gotten “a sweetheart deal of a lifetime” in exchange for hugely important cooperation.
“I don’t know that I believe that,” Bharara said.
In particular, Bharara disputes the common argument that the relatively light charge against Flynn (one false statements count) clearly shows he must have agreed to provide especially valuable information to Mueller’s investigation. (Flynn’s clearly offering some information, but the question is just how important it will be.)
Bharara refers to his own experience supervising similar high-profile investigations and prosecutions. “When we had evidence against somebody and wanted them to flip, we made them plead guilty to every bad act that they had ever done,” Bharara said. “Especially if we were later gonna be alleging other people had engaged in that activity as well.”
Doing that, Bharara argues, makes a witness like Flynn more credible in court if he has to testify against someone else. “Otherwise, the only thing the jury will know for a fact about your witness is that he is an admitted, convicted liar,” he said.
So what does Bharara think could be going on? One possibility, he suggests, is that Mueller doesn’t have anything else on Flynn that might stand up in court: “People need to really consider the possibility that this might be it.”
But Bharara also suggests another scenario: that Mueller is “holding back on other charges to which Michael Flynn will plead guilty if and when they form the basis of charging some other folks.”
That is — certain potential charges against Flynn could implicate others in Trump’s orbit as well, and Mueller’s team just isn’t ready to make those charges yet (and might never be).
This case, of course, could be rather different than Bharara’s own past prosecutions. For one, Mueller’s potential endgame might be an impeachment referral rather than a high-profile court trial. Additionally, Mueller could be concerned about Trump’s pardon power — perhaps he’s holding off on some potential charges against Flynn so he could bring them later, in case of a pardon.
But since Bharara is experienced in this field — and no fan of Trump — it’s worth listening to his analysis for a more skeptical take on just how bad Flynn’s plea might be for the president.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/5/167354...-preet-bharara
I thought she was supposed to be close to Trump?
Abandon ship!
Preet gave TSA and Hannity simultaneous orgasms.
Did you read the whole article?lol, djohn
Preet Bharara has a different take on what Michael Flynn’s plea deal means for Trump
A former US attorney doesn’t think the light charge against Flynn necessarily means he’s singing like a bird to Mueller.
When Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation on Friday, many legal experts thought they knew what that meant.
“We know from public reports that Flynn has a ton of criminal exposure, and yet he’s pleading guilty to a relatively minor crime,” Savannah Law School professor Andy Wright told my colleague Sean Illing. “I’m confident Flynn is singing like a bird to Mueller.” (Eight other law professors made similar arguments to Illing.)
Not so sure: Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by President Trump earlier this year.
On the latest episode of his podcast, “Stay Tuned With Preet,” Bharara says he isn’t convinced that Flynn has gotten “a sweetheart deal of a lifetime” in exchange for hugely important cooperation.
“I don’t know that I believe that,” Bharara said.
In particular, Bharara disputes the common argument that the relatively light charge against Flynn (one false statements count) clearly shows he must have agreed to provide especially valuable information to Mueller’s investigation. (Flynn’s clearly offering some information, but the question is just how important it will be.)
Bharara refers to his own experience supervising similar high-profile investigations and prosecutions. “When we had evidence against somebody and wanted them to flip, we made them plead guilty to every bad act that they had ever done,” Bharara said. “Especially if we were later gonna be alleging other people had engaged in that activity as well.”
Doing that, Bharara argues, makes a witness like Flynn more credible in court if he has to testify against someone else. “Otherwise, the only thing the jury will know for a fact about your witness is that he is an admitted, convicted liar,” he said.
So what does Bharara think could be going on? One possibility, he suggests, is that Mueller doesn’t have anything else on Flynn that might stand up in court: “People need to really consider the possibility that this might be it.”
But Bharara also suggests another scenario: that Mueller is “holding back on other charges to which Michael Flynn will plead guilty if and when they form the basis of charging some other folks.”
That is — certain potential charges against Flynn could implicate others in Trump’s orbit as well, and Mueller’s team just isn’t ready to make those charges yet (and might never be).
This case, of course, could be rather different than Bharara’s own past prosecutions. For one, Mueller’s potential endgame might be an impeachment referral rather than a high-profile court trial. Additionally, Mueller could be concerned about Trump’s pardon power — perhaps he’s holding off on some potential charges against Flynn so he could bring them later, in case of a pardon.
But since Bharara is experienced in this field — and no fan of Trump — it’s worth listening to his analysis for a more skeptical take on just how bad Flynn’s plea might be for the president.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/5/167354...-preet-bharara
Looks like he only read the first and last paragraphDid you read the whole article?
TSA who always is on Djohns case for "only reading" twitter headers doesn't read past a le himself.
Low level George.
Some collusion is a crime. The issue here is that the criminal collusion applicable is difficult to prove. You just fail to understand the distinction.
Someone explain to me why it would be in a defendant's interest to take a deal where they are being charged with everything as opposed to fighting being charged with everything. One sees the defendant facing the maximum possible penalty no matter what whereas the other there is a chance to get less.
I have never understood the rationale that unless they throw the book at the defendant that means they have nothing.
Collusion is not anywhere in any statute of any law concerning what exactly can be charged.
Collusion leads to other criminal acts that are in the statutes. This is what you fail to understand.
It is in an rust and other litigation.
Collusion is the omnibus term for the various laws that they are being accused of like conspiracy, wire fraud, hacking, election fraud, and international espionage. If you want to argue over semantics then great but all of them do fit the term collusion as they all involve their interactions with Russia and other states/agencies.
Like I said.
Collusion is not a statute in the books.
You got that straight. I did not know this before reading the article.
And we have a president who has already carried out some of the most bizarre actions and set so many unprededented presidential actions that to bring him down is going to require great specificity. Which is what you failed to see the article had in mind, but refer to as, just semantics...
The author is attempting to discuss what Trump cannot, can or may be charged with that is law in the statutes. It's important.
Supreme Court justices recused themselves 180 times in most recent term
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS
POSTED JULY 12, 2016, 8:30 AM CDT
http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...t_recent_term/
Last edited by Splits; 12-08-2017 at 03:59 PM.
Collusion is in several federal statutes.
If Mueller starts serving indictments to grand juries that do not reduce the charges into the relevant statutes then it's an issue. In regular discourse there is nothing wrong with using the omnibus term.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
