(12-04-2017 08:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

Not in any sense.

And I'd argue Mueller decisively removing this person from the investigation is a clear sign they take any appearance of impropriety seriously. What I find weird is that it seems like some Trump supporters think only Trump supporters should be able to investigate Trump. That's not how this works.

It doesn't matter. It's all about narrative. FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was biased. Doesn't matter that he was removed after, you cannot undo the past

Ex. The biased agent altered the transcript.
How do you defend against that

(12-04-2017 08:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

As has been already stated the leaks about the five subjects of the investigation were BEFORE (get the adult who explained priorities from the other thread to you to explain what before means) the granted was seated so unless there is a psychic on the panel the grand jury couldn't have leaked this.

lol what exactly do you think the prefix "pre" means?

My question is an genuine one. You seem very certain about the amount of people involved in this process, why? I've never been involved in an interview with a special counsel, I doubt you have either, so how are you so certain it's Mueller calling up these people being interviewed, and no one else being involved?

If it wasn't someone from Mueller's team who called the subjects of the investigation then he's failed in his job already because he's tainted his investigation.

I have been involved in several investigations, including involving feds, and know that the absolute only way that anyone not involved in the investigation knows is if either someone in the investigative team talked or the target of the investigation talked. The latter gains absolutely nothing by leaking the info. Nothing. The former does.

When you are dealing with an investigation of this scope it's typical for everything to be self-contained and compartmentalized. Everything from the lead investigator, which is Mueller in this case, to the people who type and file everything are detailed to this investigation. Even entry to the office requires pre-approved clearance. There simply isn't a chance that this is something overheard at the coffee maker. Everybody who sets foot or works on the case is required to sign non-disclosure forms. Any leak, no matter how innocuous, has the potential to derail your investigation and hinder potential prosecution so that's why they are supposed to do everything in their power to prevent them.

Pre means what?

And it sounds like all you're saying is that it could be Mueller. Ok, fair enough, let me know when you have the evidence that is WAS Mueller. Because that's what I asked for.

(12-04-2017 09:06 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

Not in any sense.

And I'd argue Mueller decisively removing this person from the investigation is a clear sign they take any appearance of impropriety seriously. What I find weird is that it seems like some Trump supporters think only Trump supporters should be able to investigate Trump. That's not how this works.

It doesn't matter. It's all about narrative. FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was biased. Doesn't matter that he was removed after, you cannot undo the past

Ex. The biased agent altered the transcript.
How do you defend against that

1. It's about facts.

2. You really think an interview of this magnitude was just him, the accused, and no one else?

(12-04-2017 09:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:06 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

Not in any sense.

And I'd argue Mueller decisively removing this person from the investigation is a clear sign they take any appearance of impropriety seriously. What I find weird is that it seems like some Trump supporters think only Trump supporters should be able to investigate Trump. That's not how this works.

It doesn't matter. It's all about narrative. FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was biased. Doesn't matter that he was removed after, you cannot undo the past

Ex. The biased agent altered the transcript.
How do you defend against that

1. It's about facts.

2. You really think an interview of this magnitude was just him, the accused, and no one else?

One dirty cop can ruin any investigation.

(12-04-2017 09:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

As has been already stated the leaks about the five subjects of the investigation were BEFORE (get the adult who explained priorities from the other thread to you to explain what before means) the granted was seated so unless there is a psychic on the panel the grand jury couldn't have leaked this.

lol what exactly do you think the prefix "pre" means?

My question is an genuine one. You seem very certain about the amount of people involved in this process, why? I've never been involved in an interview with a special counsel, I doubt you have either, so how are you so certain it's Mueller calling up these people being interviewed, and no one else being involved?

If it wasn't someone from Mueller's team who called the subjects of the investigation then he's failed in his job already because he's tainted his investigation.

I have been involved in several investigations, including involving feds, and know that the absolute only way that anyone not involved in the investigation knows is if either someone in the investigative team talked or the target of the investigation talked. The latter gains absolutely nothing by leaking the info. Nothing. The former does.

When you are dealing with an investigation of this scope it's typical for everything to be self-contained and compartmentalized. Everything from the lead investigator, which is Mueller in this case, to the people who type and file everything are detailed to this investigation. Even entry to the office requires pre-approved clearance. There simply isn't a chance that this is something overheard at the coffee maker. Everybody who sets foot or works on the case is required to sign non-disclosure forms. Any leak, no matter how innocuous, has the potential to derail your investigation and hinder potential prosecution so that's why they are supposed to do everything in their power to prevent them.

Pre means what?

And it sounds like all you're saying is that it could be Mueller. Ok, fair enough, let me know when you have the evidence that is WAS Mueller. Because that's what I asked for.

While the adult is explaining priority and before see if they can sign you up for reading comprehension lessons because I never said Mueller leaked anything personally. I've always felt it's one of the many leftists he chose to compose his team.

However, when it's determined someone on his team was leaking, and it will come out, then he should have to answer for his inability to properly vet an/or control his team. Will it happen? Probably not because it's the swamp and he's a swamp creature. But you can rest assured that a SAC running a RICO case in Peoria who has had the unforced errors that Mueller has had in this case would have already been called on the carpet and would already be replaced and likely looking for employment in the private sector.

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5



This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

I seem very certain because I've seen you throw a rod before. right through the crankcase. your oil pan was full of shredded metal for a week.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...35701.html

No spin article on what the Flynn plea means.

(12-05-2017 05:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...35701.html

No spin article on what the Flynn plea means.

Quote:Mueller’s office has been leaking as if it were run by James Comey, but they haven’t said a word about that.