Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A comprehensive source for foreign affairs and defense-related news brought to you by one of America's premier national security experts.
no. they were dismissed because they were not read their rights and not told why they were there questioning them.
One of the visiting scientists, Tang Juan, had been scheduled to go to trial on Monday. Court papers filed in her case earlier this week show some Federal Bureau of Investigation analysts casting doubt on the value of the cases. Judges had dismissed parts of the cases against Ms. Tang and another researcher in recent weeks after finding that FBI agents hadn’t properly informed them of their rights against self-incrimination when interviewing them.
yet the left for Flynn didn't care. Flynn knew the FBI and should have guessed why they were there questioning him.
The FBI agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of their interview, hoping to trip him up.
Allowing the conviction to stand would have been a travesty. This basic fact, this utter lack of sufficient evidence, is obscured by the DOJ’s heavy reliance on a legal rationale for dropping the case. In its 20-page memorandum in support of dismissal, the DOJ contends that any false statements by Flynn could not have been material because there was no legitimate basis to investigate or interview him. Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charge.
so we allow for potential chinese spies what we don't allow for former military generals of our own country.
that should send chills down anyones spine who supports traditional values at all.