Reply With Quote
You'd sign whatever they told you to if you had the choice between lying to the FBI or being charged as an unregistered foreign agent.and papa signed the stipulation
And why did Clovis say no commitments should be made at that point?
You'd sign whatever they told you to if you had the choice between lying to the FBI or being charged as an unregistered foreign agent.and papa signed the stipulation
The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
I have read every word ofthis Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 , after consulting with my attorney, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.
signed,
Papa G
so did Papa G commit perjury?
According to Papadapolous, yes, he did. He said he was threatened with being charged as an unregistered agent of Israel.The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
I have read every word ofthis Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 , after consulting with my attorney, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.
signed,
Papa G
so did Papa G commit perjury?
In your rush to make a meme you skipped a question. And why did Clovis say no commitments should be made at that point?
PAPA G LIED AND/OR LIED ABOUT LYING SO WE MUST BELIEVE HIM
so convicted felon for making false statements to the FBI who should also be charged with perjury. great. such a reliable source of information
no, the meme is perfectly justified even without addressing the questionIn your rush to make a meme you skipped a question. And why did Clovis say no commitments should be made at that point?
the email says they wanted to get everyone on the same page before committing
The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
I have read every word ofthis Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 , after consulting with my attorney, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.
signed,
Papa G
so did Papa G commit perjury?
comrade TSA in over his head -
let him go back and check his conspiracy channel!
Pelosi says she will sue the full force of Speaker's office get the Mueller report released in full
btw, Trash's obstruction extends to getting of his loyal assholes a top job in the IRS
I wonder why he acted at lightning speed.
Get who on the same page?
The best part about all the crying from the Dems about releasing the report is that the procedures changed because of Starr's report on Bill Clinton
========================================
“Of the many criticisms that were launched at the special prosecutor legislation, a frequent one was that the report requirement was unfair to people who got caught up in investigations but were not charged with anything,” Harriger tells TIME. “You can have a lot of facts that don’t look good but they don’t add up to a crime. The rationale that prosecutors always use is that we speak with our indictments, and if we don’t indict, we don’t speak, because there are lots of people who get investigated but never get prosecuted. That criticism was a frequent one.”
The lurid detail in Starr’s report heightened that criticism, contributing to what she calls a “bipartisan sense of unfairness.”
It happened that the 1978 statute expired in 1999, just a year after the impeachment — and so it followed that the procedures for a special prosecution were changed accordingly. In place of the old statute, the Department of Justice enacted internal regulations for a Special Counsel’s work. Those regulations included giving the Attorney General more power to decide how much of the final report of the investigation would be released to the public, if anything. The section regarding the release of the Special Counsel report says, “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” Another section says the Attorney General “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”
Not included was a statute requiring Special Counsel investigations to be disclosed to Congress or the public. In a March 2019 memo summarizing the current regulations, the Congressional Research Service linked that omission, and the new “approach in limiting the release of the Special Counsel’s report” to the “detail and scope” of the Starr report.
“It’s important for people to understand the difference between the statutory requirement of the report and the reaction — which is how I’d describe the regulation, as a reaction to the feeling that some of those special prosecutors went overboard in terms of what they revealed,” Harriger says. Back then, it seemed wrong to make all that information public. Today, to many, it seems problematic not to make sure the public gets that information. The situation, she says, echoing the Department of Justice, “is a good reminder too that there’s no perfect solution here.”
http://time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/
§600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action—
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Hiding report good again.
everyone. i'm quoting the email directly.
Who’s the everyone Clovis specifically mentions that Mueller’s team left out?
dunno
Doubly ed by Ginsburg years agoThe best part about all the crying from the Dems about releasing the report is that the procedures changed because of Starr's report on Bill Clinton
========================================
“Of the many criticisms that were launched at the special prosecutor legislation, a frequent one was that the report requirement was unfair to people who got caught up in investigations but were not charged with anything,” Harriger tells TIME. “You can have a lot of facts that don’t look good but they don’t add up to a crime. The rationale that prosecutors always use is that we speak with our indictments, and if we don’t indict, we don’t speak, because there are lots of people who get investigated but never get prosecuted. That criticism was a frequent one.”
The lurid detail in Starr’s report heightened that criticism, contributing to what she calls a “bipartisan sense of unfairness.”
It happened that the 1978 statute expired in 1999, just a year after the impeachment — and so it followed that the procedures for a special prosecution were changed accordingly. In place of the old statute, the Department of Justice enacted internal regulations for a Special Counsel’s work. Those regulations included giving the Attorney General more power to decide how much of the final report of the investigation would be released to the public, if anything. The section regarding the release of the Special Counsel report says, “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” Another section says the Attorney General “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”
Not included was a statute requiring Special Counsel investigations to be disclosed to Congress or the public. In a March 2019 memo summarizing the current regulations, the Congressional Research Service linked that omission, and the new “approach in limiting the release of the Special Counsel’s report” to the “detail and scope” of the Starr report.
“It’s important for people to understand the difference between the statutory requirement of the report and the reaction — which is how I’d describe the regulation, as a reaction to the feeling that some of those special prosecutors went overboard in terms of what they revealed,” Harriger says. Back then, it seemed wrong to make all that information public. Today, to many, it seems problematic not to make sure the public gets that information. The situation, she says, echoing the Department of Justice, “is a good reminder too that there’s no perfect solution here.”
http://time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/
§600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action—
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Remember when they wanted to block the Nunes memo?
Pepperidge farm remembers.
huh? that's Douglas Ginsburg and the ruling was issued today, not years agoDoubly ed by Ginsburg years ago
well then i done ed up. my bad. mea culpa.
I’m stillat mings and Swalwell
the nunes memo carried no legal weight behind it. it was just a congressman whining about what he perceived to be abuses of process. the more typical course of action is for the committee to issue a report.
the rationale behind blocking it was because it served no legal purpose. nunes wasn't pushing to #releasethememo out of some stand for transparency. its purpose was to discredit an ongoing investigation.
well then i done ed up. my bad. mea culpa.
I’m still
I blame the Pliny the Elders I’m sipping on.
It was a congressman telling the American people the investigation into Trump was bull . Think of the tens of millions of people who if they’d not laughed at it and digested what he was saying would have been saved from the meltdowns we have seen since the investigation closed with no collusion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
