the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.
There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the
Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.
The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.
But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.
And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.
And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.
Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.
The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.
How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.
Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.
I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.
But this is funny n caught my eye..
.i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?
You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.
That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.
Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.
If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.
Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?
Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....
Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...
There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You
claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?
I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.
Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.
My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.
As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.
"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."
Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.
You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.
Here ... read & learn ...
Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.
www.justia.com
Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.
www.justia.com
Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.
And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.
Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?
Ummmm... From your link;
Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.
Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.
You're dismissed.
LOL
Dumbass, that says what I said. Here, watch as I make a fool of you again...
Faun: They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave.
My Link: Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action.
Feeling stupid yet? How about now...
Here's more from my link...
My Link: If the officer told the suspect that they did not need to participate in the conversation, it probably was not custodial.
That was the case with Flynn -- not in custody.
Here's more from my link...
My Link: If they were free to leave after the conversation ended, this also would suggest that they were not in custody.
That was also the case with Flynn -- not in custody.
Flynn was not in custody and the FBI was not compelled to Mirandize him. Which again, the part that flew clear over your pointy head, was had he been in custody and not been given his Miranda rights, the who case against him would have been thrown out.
And you didn't know this. You thought him not being Mirandized was a crime. Your ignorance about Miranda casts doubt on your claims of being involved in investigations.
And lastly ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.
