Reply With Quote
Multiple investigations are still underway, did you expect some sort of pause so they could update the public?
TSA: If US officers lied to Congress and the courts, they should face consequences.
Investigate 'em all and let the chips fall where they may.
Multiple investigations are still underway, did you expect some sort of pause so they could update the public?
There is no “if”. Why is it so difficult for you to just say they lied?
Not at all, apparently that's your job.
You're the mirror image of the Russiagaters, TSA. You act like ongoing investigations and future prosecutions already prove your even more complex and even harder to prove conspiracy, or that they imminently will.
Same wishcasting tbh.
Indefinite pronoun reference, seems to presume judiciable facts.
Are you talking about the guys who were already punished in house, or the guys being investigated?
If I had a dollar for every investigation that was going to find the 'smoking gun', and be a game-changer...
Last edited by ElNono; 08-12-2020 at 04:44 AM. Reason: typo
Some context
==================================
As you might imagine, there was a good deal of back-and-forth on this, particularly between the judges and Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general, who argued the case for the Justice Department. This discussion shifted from (a) hypotheticals about how little the government could theoretically get away with disclosing about its reasoning, to (b) how much it had actually disclosed in the Flynn case. Wall made it clear that, whatever might in the abstract be the base level of required disclosure, the Justice Department had gone well above it in Flynn’s case. Here, Judge Sullivan was given a submission arguing that the case should not have been brought in the first place; it posited a legal theory that there was no crime, supported by factual disclosures that were, in turn, backed up by witness statements and other evidence.
As the discussion between Wall and the judges unfolded, a question arose about whether the prosecutor is obliged to tell the court all of its reasons for dropping a case, or if it is sufficient to impart just enough information to satisfy the court that the dismissal is not sought for an improper purpose. (The Justice Department argues that the court’s inquiry into improper purpose is limited to ensuring that the defendant agrees with the dismissal.) In explaining why there is no requirement to tell the court everything the prosecutor knows, Wall pointed out that very often the prosecutor will be aware of information from the investigation that might inform the decision to dismiss but that, for a host of good reasons, should not be disclosed.
In this vein, Wall added, it was entirely possible that Attorney General Barr might be aware of non-public information from the Flynn investigation and related investigations that should not be publicized, and that there would be no need to reveal it because the court had already been given more than enough information to be satisfied that the dismissal motion was proper.
In context, Wall seemed to be speaking theoretically, not based on personal knowledge of the investigations and what the attorney general knows about them. That’s not just the way I heard it; the judges plainly heard it the same way because there was no follow-up. It was a point worthy of making, but not one that called for probing.
Wall was not saying that Barr was in possession of or had relied on “secret information” that is being withheld from Judge Sullivan. Nor was he saying Barr had no such information, as it would be normal to have it. In fact, Wall did not seem to have the Flynn case in mind at all. He was in the position of the Justice Department’s lawyer looking out for the ins utional interests of prosecutors. It is commonplace for prosecutors to be aware of non-public information that is not disclosed in relevant court proceedings — maybe it’s grand-jury material, maybe disclosure would compromise an informant, maybe revealing it would hurt investigators’ ability to conduct effective interviews of witnesses, etc.
2
None of this is similar. There are well-known rules of the road. Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory information. And there is a duty of candor toward the tribunal. If a prosecutor makes a statement that could be misleading if other information is not disclosed, then that information must be disclosed. If a judge asks a question, the prosecutor must either answer it or inform the judge that the government declines to answer it — the court must not be placed under a misimpression. But all that said, the prosecutor simply needs to show that his reasoning satisfied any legal requirement, not to disclose every fact that informed his reasoning.
All the acting solicitor general was saying is that there is no legal obligation to inform the court of everything the prosecutor knows. He was not signaling that there is some explosive secret information somehow bearing on the Flynn dismissal motion that has been withheld from Judge Sullivan.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ynn-dismissal/
Fine.
Let the chips fall. I have no problem with people who lie to investigators and courts getting punished.
That's a big difference between you and me, you protect the liars on your side.
Lol GOP situarional ethics.
Who are you claiming I'm protecting?
Do you think a private citizen lying to the FBI and the FBI lying to the FISA court are on the same level of seriousness?
Every single Republican discussed ITT who confessed to lying and got convicted, for starters.
I think it's ok to hold US officers and LE to a higher standard of integrity; interfering with court proceedings as opposed to LE investigations intuitively seems worse to me, but have no idea what the relative schedule of punishments is.
A felony is a felony is a felony, right?
Papadapolous? Never did.
Manafort? Never did.
Gates? Never did.
Cohen? Never did.
You're full of .
Felonies are grouped in classes for a reason.
papadapolous and gates both pleaded guilty to making false statements to federal investigators
while manafort was never charged for it, his initial plea deal was invalidated because he lied to investigators
Thanks for underscoring my point that you reflexively defend Red Team lies -- even when they are admitted and pursued to legal certainty.
You misunderstood. Never did, as in I never "protected" them as you claimed. Like I said earlier, you're full of .Thanks for underscoring my point that you reflexively defend Red Team lies -- even when they are admitted and pursued to legal certainty.
TSA forgets the entire semen shield operation he mounted about Papadapolous' being framed by Undercover Mifsud.
i misunderstood your point as well (though i still disagree with this one), so disregard my previous post aboveYou misunderstood. Never did, as in I never "protected" them as you claimed. Like I said earlier, you're full of .
My bad if you haven't defended the whole list of people just mentioned, but you certainly have gone out of your way to minimize their lies, and you've proposed a number of conspiratorial theories that strongly suggest admitted liars aren't really liars.You misunderstood. Never did, as in I never "protected" them as you claimed. Like I said earlier, you're full of .
This Brookings shill own goaled himself as hard as Winehole did in thinking this review was on the Carter Page FISA's
Which FISA orders are at issue here?
This Brookings shill own goaled himself as hard as Winehole did in thinking this review was on the Carter Page FISA's
No shame in making a mistake, I'll gladly accept correction if I've goofed. How do you know Gates isn't one of the "US persons"covered -- looks like all the names and cases are redacted in the report. These weren't the Woods procedures you complained about for so long ITT?
https://assets.do entcloud.org/doc...es-IGAudit.pdf
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-12-2020 at 12:42 PM.
Show me where I went out of my way to minimize their lies. And show me the number of conspiratorial theories that strongly suggest admitted liars aren't really liars. I did say and show Mifsud was linked to Western Intelligence, not Russian Intelligence, but that is in no way minimizing any lie from Papadapolous.
Pass, searching is disabled.
Happy to revisit for a bit when it's restored.
This review was asked for by the FISC after the OIG report revealed 17 material omissions/errors in the Carter Page application. It doesn't matter if Gates is one of the US persons covered in the following review of 29 applications. It's the Carter Page application that matters. 2 of the 4 applications on Carter Page were ruled invalid because of the material omissions/errors.
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/...0%20200123.pdf
None of the applications out of 29 were ruled invalid because of material omissions/errors and there were only two total material omissions/errors.
"In a filing to the FISC on July 29 concluding the report, the Justice Department stated that of hundreds of facts contained in the 29 FISA applications reviewed by the inspector general’s office, one was a material misstatement and one a material omission. In the department’s view, neither material error invalidated the authorizations granted by the FISC to carry out surveillance, although the report acknowledged that that determination was ultimately up to the FISC."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-...a-applications
Do you now see how why the Carter Page application was so much worse and how you own goaled yourself touting the 29 application review as some sort of vindication for the FBI?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
