(05-10-2020 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:06 PM)ausowl Wrote:  other hand you have the "human scum" aka senior DOJ employees who, per an independent review, overstepped, treated a decorated general like any other criminal.

Funny you sidestep and neglect to mention an absolute ****-ton of prosecutorial misconduct here in your pithy comment. Amazing that.

Not just using an absolute craptastic stretch to 'keep an inquiry open', but you awesomely neglect the fundamental coverup and refusal to disclose stunningly pertinent information to the defense --- items that are not just mandated because the defense called for their production, but also because the judge in the case issued numerous orders for such production, oh, and dont forget that the basis for the production isnt just for ***** and giggles, it is an actual fundamental requirement of the Constitution to do so.

Yes, Strzok, and the cabal that directed that the investigation be kept open no matter what and on any fing pretext, and to the people that seemingly covered up this **** are absolutely 'human scum'. But please, overlook those details some more.

(05-10-2020 01:37 PM)ausowl Wrote:  The Pres calling career DOJ employees human scum harms the country.

(05-09-2020 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

(05-10-2020 09:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

So ... we agree but you are being salty anyway? Also, if it isn’t illegal or at least unwise then why lie about it? Second thought ... I don’t really care. Also, you seem to care about this a lot. My new goal in life is to care about more things to the same extent you care about the alleged miscarriage of justice against Michael Flynn. You have some serious passion!

(05-10-2020 09:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

So ... we agree but you are being salty anyway? Also, if it isn’t illegal or at least unwise then why lie about it? Second thought ... I don’t really care. Also, you seem to care about this a lot. My new goal in life is to care about more things to the same extent you care about the alleged miscarriage of justice against Michael Flynn. You have some serious passion!

Quote:unwise then why lie about it?

Quote:unwise then why lie about it?

(05-09-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun

lad, your 'paraphrase' was incorrect. It isnt just '[no] smoking gun'. It *was* zero tangible real evidence.

As in Zero.

Nada.

Nil.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Zip.

Naught.

Empty set.

e^( (i * pi)/2).

Your paraphrase above does about as much justice the reality of the situation as noting that someone that was decapitated and broiled alive as 'having an accident.'

Zero evidence --- and the comment coming back is (/ start mr peabody voice mode) 'well there is still smoke'. (/end mr peabody voice). Lolz.

Boy, talk about bitter clingers.

What’s the difference between “tangible evidence” and a “smoking gun” in this instance? Is one more tangibler than the other?

They all seem to say, we didn’t not find a piece of evidence the directly connected the campaign to Russian interference (smoking gun/tangible evidence), but we observed evidence of Russian interference and Trump campaign actions that, as one put it, gave pause.

I didn’t realize that we only conducted investigations when direct evidence/smoking guns were available at the start of the investigation.

(05-11-2020 09:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun

lad, your 'paraphrase' was incorrect. It isnt just '[no] smoking gun'. It *was* zero tangible real evidence.

As in Zero.

Nada.

Nil.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Zip.

Naught.

Empty set.

e^( (i * pi)/2).

Your paraphrase above does about as much justice the reality of the situation as noting that someone that was decapitated and broiled alive as 'having an accident.'

Zero evidence --- and the comment coming back is (/ start mr peabody voice mode) 'well there is still smoke'. (/end mr peabody voice). Lolz.

Boy, talk about bitter clingers.

What’s the difference between “tangible evidence” and a “smoking gun” in this instance? Is one more tangibler than the other?

They all seem to say, we didn’t not find a piece of evidence the directly connected the campaign to Russian interference (smoking gun/tangible evidence), but we observed evidence of Russian interference and Trump campaign actions that, as one put it, gave pause.

I didn’t realize that we only conducted investigations when direct evidence/smoking guns were available at the start of the investigation.

Rather than these euphemisms, why don't we use the correct words....

There were suspicions... there were things that made people who couldn't believe they lost an election suspicious.... (aka smoke)

but there was no evidence. (smoking gun)

We actually don't generally, or shouldn't be engaging in widespread investigations with only suspicions but no evidence. Those are usually referred to as 'conspiracy theories'. This one absolutely would have been 'that'.

(05-11-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that how our criminal justice system works? There must be hard evidence directly connecting someone to a crime to investigate them?

Quote:What about counter intelligence? Do counter intelligence operations require direct evidence connecting someone to a crime to start an investigation?

Quote:If either of those are true, are investigations just tools to gather more direct evidence, since they must be predicated on a smoking gun to start?

(05-11-2020 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that how our criminal justice system works? There must be hard evidence directly connecting someone to a crime to investigate them?

No, but there must be reasonable cause to investigate. There must be some factual basis for something. It can't just be, we are going to investigate him because he won an election that we didn't expect him to win, or because he worked for somebody who won that election.

Quote:What about counter intelligence? Do counter intelligence operations require direct evidence connecting someone to a crime to start an investigation?

Intel is a whole different game. Other than freak occurrences like Joe Rochefort or Bletchley Park, you don't ever get any hard evidence. You just take what you can and make guesses about the rest. And whoever makes the best guesses usually wins.

I think that's why some of these efforts were posited as intelligence investigations rather than criminal, because you really don't need much to go on for intel. You just take what you have and do the best you can.

It's like Jack Ryan in Red October. You take what you know and guess about the rest. And if Ramius sends back one ping, you know you are right. But you don't get there nearly as often as Jack Ryan seems too.

Quote:If either of those are true, are investigations just tools to gather more direct evidence, since they must be predicated on a smoking gun to start?

N/A, for reasons explained above.

(05-11-2020 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Great, this clarifies things quite a bit.
So any conversation that discusses the idea that the investigation found no hard evidence, ergo, the investigation shouldn't have happened in the first place, are misplaced and moot.
If one wants to argue that the investigation was unwarranted, the focus should be on whether there was reasonable cause to investigate.

Quote:Three months ago, I resigned from the Justice Department after 10 years as a career prosecutor. I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases, United States v. Roger Stone. At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again.

I was wrong.

Last week, the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law, filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn — notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound.

Since my resignation, I have not commented on the Stone sentencing; it is not easy for me to do so now. Prosecutors are trained to make their cases in the courtroom and let the results speak for themselves.

But I feel compelled to write because I believe that the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided, because my colleagues who still serve the department are duty-bound to remain silent and because I am convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.

First, Roger Stone. He was tried and convicted of obstruction of Congress, false statements and witness tampering, based on evidence that he had lied repeatedly to a congressional committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then threatened a witness who could have exposed those lies.

In February, the Justice Department filed a sentencing memorandum, signed by all four prosecutors in the case, recommending a sentence of seven to nine years, within the range set by the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In my experience, the Justice Department staunchly defends sentences within the guidelines range, particularly for defendants (such as Stone) who are convicted at trial, and especially for defendants (such as Stone) who repeatedly demonstrate disrespect for the judicial system.

The next morning, the president posted a tweet criticizing the sentencing recommendation as a “miscarriage of justice.” Later that day, the Justice Department submitted a revised memo revoking the original recommendation and proposing that Stone receive a much shorter sentence. All four career prosecutors who had tried Stone withdrew from the case. I resigned because I was not willing to serve a department that would so easily abdicate its responsibility to dispense impartial justice.

Last week came an equally appalling chapter: the department’s motion to drop the Flynn case. Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Flynn twice admitted under oath that he had committed this crime, and the trial judge issued a lengthy opinion upholding the plea.

Nevertheless, after public criticism of the prosecution by the president, the department moved to dismiss Flynn’s case, claiming that new evidence showed that the plea had no basis. None of the career prosecutors who handled Flynn’s case signed that motion.

In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.

Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

The attorney general’s public comments worsened matters. William P. Barr gave nationally televised interviews in which he disparaged the work of prosecutors and agents who handled these cases, criticizing the Stone prosecutors for losing “perspective” and the Flynn team for becoming “wedded to a particular outcome.”

As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client. Barr’s decision to excuse himself from these obligations and attack his own silenced employees is alarming. It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents — if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus.

The dedicated public servants who remain cannot respond publicly to those who claim that the department acted appropriately in these cases. But I can, and I say this. If the department truly acted because of good-faith commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of the president? Where are the narcotics cases in which the department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career prosecutors? Where are the other false-statements cases dismissed after a guilty plea?

There are none. Is that because the only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by department leadership happened to involve friends of the president? Of course not.

The task of repairing this damage will fall to the department’s career agents and prosecutors, and it is for them that I write this. Your work of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases is hard, and it becomes even harder when witnesses and jurors start to believe that the Justice Department’s handling of these cases is infected by politics. Your service during these times is a credit to the department. And you will be at your posts, serving justice, long after this attorney general is gone.

(05-10-2020 10:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

So ... we agree but you are being salty anyway? Also, if it isn’t illegal or at least unwise then why lie about it? Second thought ... I don’t really care. Also, you seem to care about this a lot. My new goal in life is to care about more things to the same extent you care about the alleged miscarriage of justice against Michael Flynn. You have some serious passion!

Why replace it at all? It serves no useful purpose in this day and age.

(05-11-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 09:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun

lad, your 'paraphrase' was incorrect. It isnt just '[no] smoking gun'. It *was* zero tangible real evidence.

As in Zero.

Nada.

Nil.

Nothing.

Zilch.

Zip.

Naught.

Empty set.

e^( (i * pi)/2).

Your paraphrase above does about as much justice the reality of the situation as noting that someone that was decapitated and broiled alive as 'having an accident.'

Zero evidence --- and the comment coming back is (/ start mr peabody voice mode) 'well there is still smoke'. (/end mr peabody voice). Lolz.

Boy, talk about bitter clingers.

What’s the difference between “tangible evidence” and a “smoking gun” in this instance? Is one more tangibler than the other?

They all seem to say, we didn’t not find a piece of evidence the directly connected the campaign to Russian interference (smoking gun/tangible evidence), but we observed evidence of Russian interference and Trump campaign actions that, as one put it, gave pause.

I didn’t realize that we only conducted investigations when direct evidence/smoking guns were available at the start of the investigation.

Rather than these euphemisms, why don't we use the correct words....

There were suspicions... there were things that made people who couldn't believe they lost an election suspicious.... (aka smoke)

but there was no evidence. (smoking gun)

We actually don't generally, or shouldn't be engaging in widespread investigations with only suspicions but no evidence. Those are usually referred to as 'conspiracy theories'. This one absolutely would have been 'that'.

Is that how our criminal justice system works? There must be hard evidence directly connecting someone to a crime to investigate them?

What about counter intelligence? Do counter intelligence operations require direct evidence connecting someone to a crime to start an investigation?

If either of those are true, are investigations just tools to gather more direct evidence, since they must be predicated on a smoking gun to start?

(05-10-2020 11:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Regarding Flynn and the Logan Act, I'm all for revising or replacing the Logan Act with something more reflective of modern times. I agree with the arguments presented here that no one could possibly believe that Flynn represented the current administration, as opposed to the incoming administration. At the same time, I think there are definitely some things you don't want incoming administrations to do or promise that will undermine the actions of the outgoing administration. IMHO, what Flynn is alleged to have done re: the Logan Act fall into the gray area of what should not be prosecuted even if it was possibly a violation of the law (based on the age of the law, how rarely the law was used, and discretion of the prosecutors).

Of course, they didn't actually prosecute Flynn for violating the Logan Act, they prosecuted him for, and he plead guilty to, lying to the FBI.

How 'rarely' the law used? I mean when you have to resort to a law that has its use recorded in instances per *century* and STILL dont get a result in whole numbers less than 3 there is a real gd issue.

When you *have* to resort to that law to keep an otherwise 'shut' case open, again, there is a real fing problem.

When one cant even record a *single* conviction in the 221 years it has been around, again, there is a *real* fing issue with its use.

So ... we agree but you are being salty anyway? Also, if it isn’t illegal or at least unwise then why lie about it? Second thought ... I don’t really care. Also, you seem to care about this a lot. My new goal in life is to care about more things to the same extent you care about the alleged miscarriage of justice against Michael Flynn. You have some serious passion!

I find it amazing that the same set of voices who crow to the almighty about Trump being oh so corrupt are seemingly absolutely (perhaps willingly) to that same level of supposed corrupt behavior emanating from the Obama White House.

Again, Democratic double standards at their finest.

Quote:unwise then why lie about it?

Funny. Thats not what the *original* 302 said. But again gloss over the fact that the original 302 was redone weeks after the fact to indicate otherwise.

I am firmly against any corruption *and* use of the natsec arm as a weapon against political opponents. I find it amazingly hypocritical of those who jump up and down and scream at the top of their lungs about the horrendous corruption of Trump, yet when the cover is taken off their demigod, the response is much the same as yours.

Again, Democratic double standards at their finest.