BREAKING! Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn’s Sentencing

[theDoctorisIn]

Had it been a bipartisan effort by impartial folks, maybe it could do the damage you hope and pray for. But given it was coordinated by Nunes, who was already caught once collaborating with the very White House he was supposed to be investigating, that's highly doubtful.

That's why I want the democrat memo released too. I can sniff out the bullshit if I get to see both. Of course, none of us will see the underlying evidence, so we're all just masturbating anyway.

Yeah, the underlying evidence is the only part that I'm interested in.

The rest is all fluff - lists of talking points prepared by both sides.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ah haaaa! What do we have here? I think reality has set in and Mueller is now realizing what a shit storm he's gotten himself into. Mark my words, Flynn is going to get his indictment tossed due to the corrupt FISA Warrant. Mueller realizes that now.


JUST IN=> Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn's Sentencing

I think you're a little behind the times. Flynn is well past the "indictment" phase - he's already plead guilty.

That's why they're talking about sentencing.

Problem is if the whole investigation was tainted....everything gets thrown out.
The point I made a couple of months ago was the FBI went to the FISA court and committed perjury to get a warrant.

It's not quite that simple, actually.

If the charges against Flynn was based on illegally obtained evidence, he could appeal his guilty plea, but only if his lawyers had previously filed motions to suppress said evidence which were denied. I'm not aware of Flynn's lawyers challenging the evidence against him, but it's possible that it happened.

As for your fantasies of "perjury" to get the warrant - what are you basing that on, other than desire?

Apparently your "Law & Order" marathon law education is lacking.

Go back to school and learn it the right way.

I am at this moment, in Law School, fuckwit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ok, so we are using the same definition of "unmasking".

I still don't understand what you mean, in the context of these sentences, though:

The unmasking that was going on by the obama admin tells me they had a tap going on trump tower.

How did the obama admin get the information that allowed them to do the unmasking?

Part of the unmasking had to do with information provided by foreign governments who were doing their own surveillance of the Russians.

Care to provide a link to that. I haven't heard one bit of that.

LOL

You haven't heard about an "illegal warrant" used on Flynn either -- that didn't interfere with your claims about an "illegal warrant" you know nothing about which is not being reported about by anyone.

And you're still stuck on square one bleating about that which you know nothing about.

LOLOL

Cries the idiot who has zero knowledge of the illegally obtained warrant used on Flynn because it's actually alledged to have been used on Page, not Flynn.

You keep trotting that out as though it exists. Where is it?

 

[cnm]

So how is Flynn being prosecuted from a wiretap on the Russian ambassador if he was not the target of the surveillance?

I thought the offence was lying to the FBI.

edit...To which he has plead guilty. No?

 

[DarkFury]

Hmmmm.....Probation?

If the FISA warrants were bad, it's NOT GUILTY!!!

 

[Tom Horn]

I started a thread for people to go on record for what they expect the memo will reveal. You're welcome to post your theory in it, if you've got the confidence to do so.

Note to viewers: some of you may wonder how I get away with giving this mod a ration of shit on occasion. Although he Rubber Roomed a thread of mine today, generally he's a prick but not an asshole who bans for being outplayed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"The unmasking that was going on by the Obama admin tells me they had a tap going on Trump tower"

That sentence doesn't make sense. It looks like a pile of buzzwords without substance.

How would the "unmasking" tell you that Trump tower was tapped?


As for the surveillance that trapped Flynn in his lie - he was on the phone with the Russian Ambassador. It's a pretty safe bet that the target of the surveillance was the Russian, and not Flynn.

How about an illegally gotten tap on the phone? Actually, I would like to know what the conversation was exactly...mayne Flynn IS guilty.

It's not illegal to tap the Russian Ambassador's phone.

As for what they were talking about, it's been all over the news for a year now - and as for whether or not Flynn is guilty, he claims that he is, so why do you doubt him?

Like I said, I would like to know what he is guilty for. If it's trivial, or even illegal tactics used, Let him go. We have to have laws and the authorities have to abide by them. We are no better than a third world country if we allow illegal means used to get political enemies.

Flynn told the FBI that he had not talked to Ambassador Kislak about sanctions. The surveillence of Kislak, which picked up that phone call proved that he was lying.

Lying to the FBI is a crime, and the one that Flynn plead guilty to. There were no "illegal tactics" used, and no one forced Flynn to lie. It doesn't even really appear that he had reason to lie - but he did so anyway.

So how is Flynn being prosecuted from a wiretap on the Russian ambassador if he was not the target of the surveillance?

That would be like prosecuting someone for jaywalking when you can see him walking across the street on a traffic camera after he witnessed an armed robbery at a bank, and letting the bank robber go free!

Because he called the target of the surveillance, and their conversation was recorded.

I don't understand your delusional hypothetical - but I'll supply my own.

If the FBI sets up a long-term surveillance operation on a suspected drug kingpin's house (complete with legal warrants and everything) and happens to record a man kidnapping a woman, and throwing her into the trunk of his car in front of the drug kingpin's house.

Do you think that the evidence against the kidnapper, in the form of the video of him committing the crime, was "illegally acquired"? He wasn't the target of the surveillance.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I started a thread for people to go on record for what they expect the memo will reveal. You're welcome to post your theory in it, if you've got the confidence to do so.

Note to viewers: some of you may wonder how I get away with giving this mod a ration of shit on occasion. Although he Rubber Roomed a thread of mine today, generally he's a prick but not an asshole who bans for being outplayed.

Them's the rules here.

There's no rule against giving me shit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ever heard of Miranda Rights? We know Strzok was invited into Flynn's office not knowing he was being interviewed on a criminal matter and we know he didn't have counsel present. Even a dumbass like you should know he may not have been Mirandized.

Flynn wasn't under arrest when he was interviewed by the FBI. He wasn't a suspect, either. The only crime he's being charged with resulted directly from that interview, and obviously wasn't at play, at the time.

You don't get Mirandized if you're not under arrest.

Way to go moron...

Every investigator knows that if you want your findings to be admissible in court as evidence YOU MUST MIRANDIZE..

This is one of the reason they are going after the Mueller idiots.. They are pulling fallacious crap out of their ass.. The judge even recused himself from this case due to conflicts...

Don't base your knowledge of the law on Law & Order.

To use statements made while under arrest against someone in court, they must be Mirandized.

Flynn was not under arrest when he lied to the FBI.

You really are clueless..

Unsolicited statements are admissible without Miranda. Once you as a law enforcement officer asks a question, YOUR SOLICITING A STATEMENT.. and your stupid ass had better have Mirandized your suspect or its garbage.

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the charges against Flynn was based on illegally obtained evidence, he could appeal his guilty plea, but only if his lawyers had previously filed motions to suppress said evidence which were denied. I'm not aware of Flynn's lawyers challenging the evidence against him, but it's possible that it happened.

I disagree with the part where his lawyers are required to move to suppress evidence prior to knowing it was ill-gotten. If they can prove improper behavior, the court can and likely will vacate. Otherwise, all the DOJ has to do is hide the fact that the evidence was illegally obtained until the close of evidence and the railroad is in full operation.

 

[Lewdog]

I started a thread for people to go on record for what they expect the memo will reveal. You're welcome to post your theory in it, if you've got the confidence to do so.

Note to viewers: some of you may wonder how I get away with giving this mod a ration of shit on occasion. Although he Rubber Roomed a thread of mine today, generally he's a prick but not an asshole who bans for being outplayed.

Maybe you should break out a pool cue and use it on him... and then after you knock him out, cut off one of his ears and add it to your necklace.

Oh, never mind, you only hit women with pool cues.

 

[Faun]

Not necessarily, but the possibility exists. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing how mueller got the evidence he used against flynn, but if it is tainted then flynn walks. Sadly so to will manafort, who really is a scumbag.

Please take a legal course. Something that explains how the criminal justice system works, because you are more clueless than Alicia Silverstone.

Flynn pleaded guilty, and gave a full allocution to the judge. And both Flynn and his lawyer signed the agreement where they would not appeal the guilty finding.

Allocution - Wikipedia

An allocution, or allocutus, is a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty prior to being sentenced. It is part of the criminal procedure in some jurisdictions using common law.

In plea bargains, an allocution may be required of the defendant. The defendant explicitly admits specifically and in detail the actions and their reasons in exchange for a reduced sentence.

In principle, that removes any doubt as to the exact nature of the defendant's guilt in the matter.

I'm an Officer of the Court , moron, and have been for longer than you've been alive. I suggest you take your own advice and do some research before you make an ass of yourself yet again.

Mueller got the evidence he used against Flynn because the FBI was wiretapping the Russian ambassador, and Flynn called him.

Then Flynn blatantly lied to the FBI about a call that he almost certainly knew was being monitored.

Maybe. We don't have a clue how they obtained the warrant. I am merely going on what has been reported. The fact that mueller has postponed sentencing tells me that the case is in trouble. There is no logical reason to ever postpone sentencing.

No warrant is needed to monitor foreign powers.

And I can think of many logical reasons for Mueller to postpone sentencing - for example, perhaps he's waiting to see how information given to him by Flynn plays out before he offers a sentence recommendation.

If there was a tap on trump tower there was a warrant. Period. How they obtained that warrant is probably what a good portion of that memo is all about.

No one other than Trump has claimed there was a tap on Trump Tower.

Yet!

LOL

Shit, I'm still waiting for Hussein's stockpiles of WMD's to show up after rightards kept insisting if I just wait, they'll turn up...

yet.

 

[Care4all]

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it is quite amazing how easy it is for someone to "know" something that simply isn't true.

DERP

{Some lawmakers said the abuses are so bad they echo actions of the Soviet KGB, with the added warning that changes could come to the FBI as a consequence. They have repeated the notion that they were not allowed to review it prior to the House Intelligence Committee’s vote to make it public earlier this week. Again, the FBI has read the memo; FBI Director Wray reviewed it on Sunday. They have all the documents—and if they were so worried about national security, why were portions leaked to The New York Times a day after Wray looked at it? President Trump wants the memo released. After the House Intelligence Committee vote on January 29, Trump has five days to decide whether to block its release or not. }

FBI to Trump White House: Please Block The FISA Memo That Could Expose Us For Spying On You

Did you forget what claim you were trying to back up?

I don't see anything about "FALSIFIED and FABRICATED" evidence in there. Maybe you posted the wrong link?

DERP

{Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified.

In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10.}

Christopher Steele admits dossier charge unverified

You mindless hacks are FUNNY when you're in full meltdown panic mode....

SO what? The dossier was not the primary information provided to the judge for the extension approval of the surveillance.... there was 120 plus pages of information provided by the justice dept to the FISA judge showing that the surveillance the previous 90 days provided important information for the counter intelligence investigation and for the request to have it continue was critical....the FISA judge and his staff then had to spend the time to read and analyze the 120 pages of info to decide if t was legal to go forward with the extension of the surveillance....

The Dossier was just a preliminary field investigative report, and did need to be verified.....and yes Steele knew that.... he never said it was 100% accurate, he thought it COULD BE close to that, but inevitably, some info turns out to be wrong in field reports, it ALL needed to be verified by the FBI....

and since the FBI has had the dossier/field report, they HAVE verified several parts of the dossier.....

whatever bit of the dossier submitted in the FISA extension request, would NOT have been the primary information used by the FISA judge, it could simply be supplemental information.....

A 4 page cherry picked, partisan instead of bipartisan memo isn't gonna tell an accurate story of a 120 page story....

Really?

Well let's see your evidence?



Your coup has failed and you are all melting down.

This is far worse than Watergate, I have a feeling you Stalinist scum will finally be held to answer for your crimes.

BY ALL MEANS

you can stick with that "story'', even after the egg gets thrown in your face.... no problem with me....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Flynn wasn't under arrest when he was interviewed by the FBI. He wasn't a suspect, either. The only crime he's being charged with resulted directly from that interview, and obviously wasn't at play, at the time.

You don't get Mirandized if you're not under arrest.

Way to go moron...

Every investigator knows that if you want your findings to be admissible in court as evidence YOU MUST MIRANDIZE..

This is one of the reason they are going after the Mueller idiots.. They are pulling fallacious crap out of their ass.. The judge even recused himself from this case due to conflicts...

Don't base your knowledge of the law on Law & Order.

To use statements made while under arrest against someone in court, they must be Mirandized.

Flynn was not under arrest when he lied to the FBI.

You really are clueless..

Unsolicited statements are admissible without Miranda. Once you as a law enforcement officer asks a question, YOUR SOLICITING A STATEMENT.. and your stupid ass had better have Mirandized your suspect or its garbage.

No. You're just plain wrong, there's nothing else to say about it. Miranda v. Arizona only applies when interrogating people in custody.

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

No. You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

custody

n. 1) holding property under one's control. 2) law enforcement officials' act of holding an accused or convicted person in criminal proceedings, beginning with the arrest of that person. 3) in domestic relations (divorce, dissolution) a court's determination of which parent (or other appropriate party) should have physical and/or legal control and responsibility for a minor under 18. (See: child custody)

I can't link it, because it's behind a (very expensive) paywall. But there it is, nevertheless.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah haaaa! What do we have here? I think reality has set in and Mueller is now realizing what a shit storm he's gotten himself into. Mark my words, Flynn is going to get his indictment tossed due to the corrupt FISA Warrant that was used to spy on him. Mueller realizes that now.


JUST IN=> Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn's Sentencing

LOL In other words, Flynn just broke and now is singing like a sweet little canary. LOL

 

[Faun]

What law do you believe was broken in getting the FISA warrant?

If they got a FISA warrant based on fabricated information, everything they learned from getting that warrant is tainted.

If they presented that ill-gotten evidence to Flynn and he plead guilty based on it, the Court could overturn his conviction and suppress his guilty plea. A higher court could do the same.

The question no one here can answer, despite being asked repeatedly.....

..... what FISA warrant was illegally obtained pertaining to Flynn??

Y'all are confusing Flynn with Page.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah haaaa! What do we have here? I think reality has set in and Mueller is now realizing what a shit storm he's gotten himself into. Mark my words, Flynn is going to get his indictment tossed due to the corrupt FISA Warrant. Mueller realizes that now.


JUST IN=> Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of Gen. Michael Flynn's Sentencing

I think you're a little behind the times. Flynn is well past the "indictment" phase - he's already plead guilty.

That's why they're talking about sentencing.

Guilty pleas, obtained via illegally gotten evidence, are Vacated not infrequently.

Oh, oh! Do I smell an acquittal on the horizon? How does that work?

Not necessarily, but the possibility exists. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing how mueller got the evidence he used against flynn, but if it is tainted then flynn walks. Sadly so to will manafort, who really is a scumbag.

The whole Goddamned admin are scumbags.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the charges against Flynn was based on illegally obtained evidence, he could appeal his guilty plea, but only if his lawyers had previously filed motions to suppress said evidence which were denied. I'm not aware of Flynn's lawyers challenging the evidence against him, but it's possible that it happened.

I disagree with the part where his lawyers are required to move to suppress evidence prior to knowing it was ill-gotten. If they can prove improper behavior, the court can and likely will vacate. Otherwise, all the DOJ has to do is hide the fact that the evidence was illegally obtained until the close of evidence and the railroad is in full operation.

There is an exception if the reason to believe that the evidence used at trial (or prior to it) was illegally obtained surfaced after the plea bargain occurred.

 

[Care4all]

oh, and just heard on the news that the 120 pages submitted to the FISA Judge was just the summary of the thousands of pages of documents the justice dept supplied as support for them needing the extension on the surveillance....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Epic FAIL

Try Again.. 30 years in law enforcement and it very much so applies. A formal interview is "custody" and Miranda warnings are necessary.

Is that based on department policy (they tend to stay far from the line and Mirandize everybody no matter what) or is that based on Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny?

Custodial interrogations are those that occur when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel he/she is not free to go.

I don't think Flynn can claim that. based on my understanding of the facts.

It doesn't matter either way if they illegally obtained evidence and used that evidence to secure a guilty plea. Mirandized or not, the plea can be suppressed or conviction vacated based on that. Miranda is irrelevant.