Politicspolitics

Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:46 PM

Sally Yates sent the FBI to question Flynn

Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn's comments in the intercepted call to be 'highly significant' and 'potentially illegal,' according to an official familiar with her thinking," the Post reported. "Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country."

On Jan. 24, the Justice Department — the Obama holdover Yates had become the acting attorney general — sent two FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, who talked to them without a lawyer present.

Comey went to Capitol Hill in March to brief lawmakers privately. That is when he told them that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied, or that any inaccuracies in Flynn's answers were intentional. And that is when some lawmakers got the impression that Flynn would not be charged with any crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

But to outside observers, mystery still surrounds the case. To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. The Flynn matter is at the very heart of the Trump-Russia affair, and there is still a lot to learn about it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

Remember that there is no recording of Mike Flynn’s interview and that uber biased Sally Yates flat declined to carry out Trump’s travel ban for reasons that are not rooted in the law.

There are rumors the agents 302s were compromised and that is why the sentencing is postponed.

It all smells. Can’t wait for Sally Yates to be perp walked away.

53 replies, 501 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sally Yates sent the FBI to question Flynn (Original post)
Let it go Feb 2018 OP
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #1
Shkreli Feb 2018 #2
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #3
bfox74 Feb 2018 #10
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #7
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #13
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #18
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #19
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #20
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #23
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #24
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #37
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #40
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #41
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #43
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #46
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #48
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #14
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #16
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #21
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #22
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #25
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #26
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #27
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #28
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #29
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #30
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #31
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #32
Hamer555 Feb 2018 #33
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #35
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #39
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #44
buck_turgidson Feb 2018 #47
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #49
Gunslinger201 Feb 2018 #4
rh24 Feb 2018 #5
Horsefeathers Feb 2018 #9
def_con5 Feb 2018 #6
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #8
bfox74 Feb 2018 #11
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #12
Cobra jet Feb 2018 #15
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #17
Cobra jet Feb 2018 #38
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #42
Cobra jet Feb 2018 #50
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #51
Cobra jet Feb 2018 #52
GoldwatersSoul Feb 2018 #53
bfox74 Feb 2018 #34
Cobra jet Feb 2018 #36
bfox74 Feb 2018 #45

Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 12:01 AM

1. That explains why Flynn put in a guilty plea....No wait. ...no it doesn't

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 12:56 AM

2. Sure it does. Think it through.....

 

Damned. You better never need to think your way out of a legal jam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shkreli (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:16 AM

3. yes, a guilty plea is always the solution

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:09 AM

10. Who said that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:59 AM

7. A guilty plea...

He may have lied to the FBI, but, it he was being questioned over something that was NOT A CRIME they infringed his constitutional rights, namely 4th and 5th Amendments. I tried to explain this to you the other day. If there was NO crime, there can be no process crimes. The questioning was illegitimate on its face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 11:51 AM

13. Not a fact, more of a religious belief on your part.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:23 PM

18. Think...

when have you ever heard of law enforcement questioning a person for a crime that has no real evidence of ever having actually took place.
If that is the case then why do police officers have to identify at least a token offense to pull a car over. This is simply common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:41 PM

19. Think...

 

When you have ever seen someone enter a plea of guilty when there is no evidence of a crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:03 PM

20. His guilty plea...

was based on a process crime. I am not sure why he lied about speaking with a Russian but he did. If no crime is uncovered that corroborates the reason he was questioned in the first place, I expect that it will be dismissed. I tend to think this is why there is a delay in sentencing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:24 PM

23. yeah, that's what happens when you enter a plea of guilty....they dismiss the case.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:27 PM

24. Problem is..

even with a guilty plea, the evidence has to be presented. If the "evidence" is tainted, is collected illegally etc. The judge will have to declare mistrial and start again. If they do follow through on Flynn he will have another court date nearly immediately due to the nature of what has already been discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:30 PM

37. Flynn is counting on staying out of jail.....he would be a fool to withdraw his plea

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:56 PM

40. I see no scenario...

where Flynn goes to jail. The moment he is sentenced he gets a pardon. If they take down Trump, Pence pardons them both. They would have to have a coup of epic proportions to put Flynn in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:00 PM

41. I also see no scenario where Flynn goes to jail...he is cooperating with Mueller.

 

The sentencing is delayed so that Flynn will get probation at the end of the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:07 PM

43. He won't serve a day...

of probation. Why would Flynn accept probation if he knows he would be pardoned. The whole concept of FLynn as a bombshell government witness was flawed from the inkling of this investigation in Hillary Clinton's mind.

Why would they give Flynn probation? What would be the goal of prosecution? We caught you in a lie in a false investigation that you will probably be exonerated for in retrial so here is our best deal? 5 years probation!! No egg on our face and you get almost no penalty for a crime we basically force on you. Or... you know... you could go with option B, be sentenced and take a pardon from the President and go home with no penalty. What do you say?? Wear our Scarlet Letter?? Or go home scott free???

Easy choice here..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:15 PM

46. He won't be pardoned. He "betrayed" Trump by cooperating.

 

Last edited Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I love it that you imagine that he would be exonerated in REtrial....or a SENTENCING HEARING.....why not at TRIAL? You so desperately want the things that you are saying to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:52 PM

48. Media noise...

When his original trial was held, it was under the assumption that a crime had been committed to press an investigation. Today it is fairly clear that is was based on bullshit. In a new trial, his attorneys would call for a dismissal and probably get it due to the fact that evidence of any crime was derived illegally.

By the way, Flynn's attorneys are SEEKING dismissal over the very issue I am talking about. It isn't me dreaming this up. It is a process. I don't believe what I am saying to be true. I have no emotion invested in it. I think that democrats would rue the day if they were to throw Trump out. It would be almost suicidal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 12:19 PM

14. This is legally not accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:18 PM

16. Yes it is.

You cant question a person for a crime that did not happen. You must at least have reasinable suspicion that the crime took place. Otherwise process crimes would be rampant in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:20 PM

21. No, its not.

"You can't question a person for a crime that did not happen." Think that one over for a minute......ask your attorney friends.....Compare it to your next sentence. LOL




You cannot knowingly mislead investigators if you are being questioned as part of an investigation. Period.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:24 PM

22. If investigators...

are chasing a crime that never happened. Ask YOUR attorney friends about prosecutorial misconduct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:34 PM

25. Its not a bianary situation.....

You are implying that an investigation ends in one of two ways - either it is proven that a crime was committed, or it is proven that a crime was not committed, and therefor, there was prosecutorial misconduct.

This is not the case. An investigation can result in the conclusion that A) while there was initially the reasonable suspicion of a crime, further investigation reveals that there was no crime, and that B) no prosecutorial misconduct was committed. Investigators were just doing their jobs, and acted in good faith.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:50 PM

26. An investigation...

CANNOT START IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME....

There is no real suspicion of a crime...all involved have called all evidence leading up to the investigation as spurious. I have never heard of an investigation and questioning of witnesses which would lead to a process crime happening without any crime ever having existed. What crime have you heard of that was investigate by a prosecutor in which no crime ever actually existed and people involved in the case were prosecuted for process crimes??? I don't know of one at all.

Your assertion that an investigator is "doing their job in good faith," is erroneous. If you were correct, then it could be used in all circumstances.

If a woman comes to work with a black eye, a policeman cannot assume that she has been beaten by her husband, arrest him and then question him as if there was a crime committed. Even if a neighbor called the police and said he heard yelling coming from the home. There is no evidence, no probable cause. if the police found an old rummy who was near sighted who said he saw the man hit his wife. The evidence would have to be considered questionable and very difficult to determine probable cause. Anything done using spurious evidence would be prosecutorial misconduct.

You want this investigation to be true, but law is reason without emotion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 02:59 PM

27. Enjoy your lawyering....

We'll see how this plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:00 PM

28. You dont need to be a lawyer...

you just need to understand the rules and know that they don't change depending on the defendants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:02 PM

29. I never said anything of the sorts, but thanks for the tip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:06 PM

30. Perhaps not...

but you seem to want to believe crimes can be manifested from an investigation with no probable cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:08 PM

31. I literally never said no probable cause. Not a single time. Ha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:17 PM

32. I initiated a conversation...

Where I expressed that process crimes cannot be prosecuted if an investigation has been started without probable cause as it is an abuse of the 4th and 5th Amendment. You said my argument was erroneous. You may never have touched on the technical part of my argument but that I think was intentional.

You have to have a LEGITIMATE crime and LEGITIMATE evidence to question someone in a manner that they might be prosecuted under process crimes. I am not sure what your argument is if it is not that prosecutors can question you until they identify a crime and THEN start indicting. Please explain if it something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:46 PM

33. I think you are reading meaning into my words that I did not put there....

Hence why you think I have said things I did not say.

I think the point you are getting at is that perhaps Flynn should not be eligible to be charged with lying to investigators, therefore his plea deal is bunk.

If this were the case, I have a strong feeling that Flynn's legal team would have already made such an argument before the court prior to entering a plea agreement.

But as I said, we will see how this plays out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamer555 (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:10 PM

35. I think...

This is the reason there has been a delayed sentencing. If Mueller convicts and sentences him and the entire investigation turns out to be a fraud, there will be some reckoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:33 PM

39. no, you WANT that to be the reason. You HOPE.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:10 PM

44. I wouldn't want anyone...

prosecuted for a political crime because the opposition candidate has sour grapes a full Depends and connections in government. I have already seen a political persecution in this country and it was a travesty. Never again....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:17 PM

47. so Flynn lied to the FBI because of the Almighty Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to buck_turgidson (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 06:02 PM

49. I am not sure why he lied...

What i know is, the FBI would not even be questioning him if it weren't for the bullshit investigation they launched. You see to start investigating, you have to have a crime. The crime they came up with was one Hillary and company invented. All involved have now said the evidence is spurious at best. Ergo, there is no probable cause that a crime was actually committed. Since there is no REAL proof that a crime actually occurred, all actions performed like investigating and questioning witnesses as if a crime DID occur are prosecutorial misconduct.

Namely by questioning Flynn under the false pretense that a crime had been committed they violated his 4th and 5th amendment rights. Learn the rules man...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:40 AM

4. Whenever Government Malfeasance is exposed

Sally Yates is right in the middle of it



Makes you go Hmmmmm 😐

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 08:58 AM

5. The hero of DU looks more and more like she might be the one going to the big house, not Flynn.

Don't drop the soap around Big Rosie, Sal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:06 AM

9. Another bitter Lefty

Looks like she has a Sandy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:51 AM

6. This is so maddening

The left went nuts, and would never accept, that Trump was elected and was going to implement policy changes.

Saw an interview with a Dem pundit last night who supposedly had heard the Flynn wiretap.

He was hopping mad, cause Trump was going to reverse Obama's policy on Russia. That's the basis for all this bullshit.

What he said was Flynn said something, like there is a new sheriff in town, we will look into it please don't retaliate.

Trump can't do that, Trump was going to reverse the sanctions Obama imposed.

Yes he can new Presidents change policies. Treason, most foul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:01 AM

8. Just remember...

the Deep State is a fantasy....can't be real right??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:13 AM

11. And the nutbars who say that are also the same people who say there is no liberal media bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:19 AM

12. The crazy thing...

is we have had reminders of this over the years. Alger Hiss, the Venona Papers, and the prosecution of Richard Nixon...actually if the Tower Commission is to be believed, Iran-Contra was an action of the "Deep State."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 12:20 PM

15. There's bias for sure

 

But liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. The deep state or whatever controls the MSM. It has as many Repubs as Dems in it's control. Why else would Sessions allowed Mueller to be appointed by recusing himself? Lots of Repubs openly endorsed Hillary. As did Clapper, Brennan and the rest of the IC directors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:19 PM

17. The overall enemy..

is those who seek to transform the US into a socialist version of itself. Akin to France or Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:33 PM

38. Who in our government seeks that?

 

Unless poor people come up with some cash to pay the politicians. That will never be the goal of our bought and paid for leaders. Some of them might use the rhetoric pretending to care about the poor. But that's as far as it goes. Self enrichment is the only priority of our leaders. And socialism wouldn't contribute at all to their self enrichment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:00 PM

42. Then..

you don't understand what happens in Socialist countries. The poor are not lifted up in Socialist countries either. Instead government takes over corporations as well. This makes government officials the elite of society and they create winners and losers as far as wealth and creation of industry. Those who seek government as the Alpha and Omega are seeking this end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 09:16 PM

50. The "ism"

 

The ism philosophy regardless which one is applied isn't what decides quality of life of the people. The people implementing the ism is what decides that. If a capitalist system is implemented by people that want a high standard of living for the people, it'll be great. If a socialist system is implemented by people that want a high standard of living for the people it'll be good also. Hell if a dictator was a good human that cared about his people he'd be good also. Unfortunately the leaders tend to only care about their own self enrichment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 14, 2018, 08:56 AM

51. What utter nonsense...

The United States has such strong income mobility that 90% of all millionaires are first generation. 75% of all people born into poverty will be at least middle class when they die. The leadership are not simply trying to enrich themselves. I really see no benefit to being in government if your intention is to get wealthy. It is an impediment if anything.

Socialism cannot create a high standard of living. If you read Marx you will understand that a Socialist society needs a capitalist framework that is already set in which to succeed as a socialist state. It is very difficult for Socialist states to build and enter a new industry on a global scale from nothing at all. All of the Socialist states of Europe are actually mixed economies and were capitalist til just after WWII. Since they have made their lurch toward Socialism, they have struggled, more and more to meet the needs of their people.

Where have you developed the cynical ideas? They do not seem to be based on the world around you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 14, 2018, 11:45 AM

52. What planet do you live on?

 

If the leaders aren't about self enrichment. Why do they not pass laws to prevent them from working at companies as lobbyist that they wrote favorable bills for? 75% of people born into poverty will be middle class? Ha ha, I hope so. I'd be happy if 75% of the people were middle class period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #52)

Wed Feb 14, 2018, 12:08 PM

53. Earth...what plane of reality do you exist in???

Why is it important that we limit opportunities in any way in the United States?

I guess the Middle class percentage would depend on how you define it.

We have a 15% or so poverty rate as defined by the government. If everything above the poverty rate to a certain threshhold is middle class. Then a vast majority of those above poverty rate would be middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:46 PM

34. No, the bias in the MSM is most definitely liberal.

They almost never reported anything negative about Obama and almost never report anything positive about Trump even though Trump has done more positive things in one year than Obama did in 8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:24 PM

36. Liberals don't support war

 

Yet every MSM source will will cheerlead and support going to war. Remember how the MSM were orgasming over the 59 tomahawks fired at Syria? I think the definition of liberal has been misdirected to include the Hillary wing of the politicians. The MSM colluded with Hillary against Bernie Sanders. Who clearly fits the definition of a liberal. Hillary is neither liberal or conservative. She is pure corruption with a sociopathic goal of self enrichment and a lust for ruthless power of death and distruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cobra jet (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:14 PM

45. No, they would call Trump a war monger. Conservatives don't support war either, by the way.

But they do realize that it's sometimes necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics