US Election 2020

[greg0205]

Your link supports what I am saying, greg. Thanks for that.

Can you please identify how the supposed lie is material to any legitimate FBI investigation?

While I wait for you to scramble to answer this question with some sort of legal basis (while you are at it, maybe you can show ANY precedent for an indictment based on the Logan Act in support of your argument), here is a song for you which I know you can relate to.

The law is for thee not for me, amirite?

 

[Emjay]

The law is for thee not for me, amirite?

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Solid legal argument there, greg.

 

[greg0205]

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Solid legal argument there, greg.

Guilty of what, buka? Can you tell us that? Demonstrate what material laws have been broken here and show what harm was done.

Here's yours:

Home invaders should check with homeowners before they invade a home. If the homeowner is comprehensively covered, insurance will replace everything that gets stollen... If everything is replaced, what harm was done?

Can we really say a crime has been committed?

Highjackers could ask the drivers they're hijacking if their insurance includes replacement *and* car-hire, that way they truly minimise the harm done *and* the car is replaced.... If the car is replaced and the driver has a rental to drive while he waits for the payout, what harm was done?

Can we really say a crime has been committed?

The law applies to Republicans, Democrats, resistance and Trumpets equally.

Mike lied to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a crime - I provided the statute.

The FBI could prove he was lying, and because they could prove it *and* lying to the FBI is a crime and Mike pled guilty.

1+1=2

 

[Emjay]

Here's yours:

Home invaders should check with homeowners before they invade a home. If the homeowner is comprehensively covered, insurance will replace everything that gets stollen... If everything is replace, what harm was done?

Can we really say a crime has been committed?

Highjackers could ask the drivers they're hijacking if their insurance includes replacement *and* car-hire, that way they truly minimise the harm done *and* the car is replaced.... If the car is replaced and the driver has a rental to drive while he waits for the payout, what harm was done?

Can we really say a crime has been committed?

The law applies to Republicans, Democrats, resistance and Trumpets equally.

Mike lied to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a crime - I provided the statute.

The FBI could prove he was lying, and because they could prove it *and* lying to the FBI is a crime and Mike pled guilty.

1+1=2

Hillary Clinton broke the law. She should be in jail.

1+1=2.

 

[greg0205]

Hillary Clinton broke the law. She should be in jail.

1+1=2.

Damn. My calendar says 2020... Best I correct the date to 2016.

But tell me more about multiple congressional hearings, eleven hours of live testimony and the FBI investigation that found nothing, Em.

Also, if you're going to play this particular game, tell me more about Ivanka and Jared using private mail accounts for government business.

EDIT: "Deflect. Deflect. Deflect" she shrieks as she deflects from statutory law to ButHerMails. Never change Em. Never change.

 

[Emjay]

Damn. My calendar says 2020... Best I correct the date to 2016.

But tell me more about multiple congressional hearings, eleven hours of live testimony and the FBI investigation that found nothing, Em.

Also, if you're going to play this particular game, tell me more about Ivanka and Jared using private mail accounts for government business.

I wasn't being serious. Hence the meme. *facepalm* Yes, a hijacking is comparable to some 200 year out dated piece of legislation. Your logic is superior. 1+1=2. We should really model legal systems on greg's moral compass. 1+1=2 is just so simple. What could go wrong, guys?

But, deflection aside. Get those reading glasses, greggypants. Because those aged eyes are really not doing too good. I will quote it again for you for ease of reference.

18 U.S. Code § 1001.Statements or entries generally

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b)

In the real world, we deal with precedent, and complex laws as they are written. Because things are really not so easy as 1+1=2 when you practise law. Let's get back on track, shall we? Since you know more than the folks over at the DOJ, maybe you can show them how such lie was material so they can undo their 1+1=0 gaffe? While you are at it, you should really let us in on the secret as well.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Hillary Clinton broke the law. She should be in jail.

1+1=2.

Actually you go to jail when you are charged, indicted and then sentenced to a crime that caries a jail penalty.
So if you can refer me to criminal charges and her guilty plea and subsequent sentencing then I will 100% agree that she should go to jail. 100%

 

[rietrot]

Damn. My calendar says 2020... Best I correct the date to 2016.

Interesting statute of limitations you just invented there.

4 more years of Trump. We can basically sweep the 1st term under the rug. The second term will be a problem though depending on who comes next.

 

[greg0205]

Interesting statude of limitations you just invented there.

4 more years of Trump. We can basically sweep the 1st term under the rug. The second term will be a problem though depending on who comes next.

*statute*

 

[greg0205]

I wasn't being serious. Hence the meme. *facepalm* Yes, a hijacking is comparable to some 200 year out dated piece of legislation. Your logic is superior. 1+1=2. We should really model legal systems on greg's moral compass. 1+1=2 is just so simple. What could go wrong, guys?

But, deflection aside. Get those reading glasses, greggypants. Because those aged eyes are really not doing too good. I will quote it again for you for ease of reference.



In the real world, we deal with precedent, and complex laws as they are written. Because things are really not so easy as 1+1=2 when you practise law. Let's get back on track, shall we? Since you know more than the folks over at the DOJ, maybe you can show them how such lie was material so they can undo their 1+1=0 gaffe? While you are at it, you should really let us in on the secret as well.

In the real world, George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates went to jail for the same offence... But tell me more about precedent.

EDIT: Also, please tell me why this particular 200 year old legislation is outdated, but the one about muskets is valid.

 

[Emjay]

In the real world, George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates went to jail for the same offence... But tell me more about precedent.

The FBI were investigating them based on contravening the Logan Act? Really?

 

[greg0205]

The FBI were investigating them based on contravening the Logan Act? Really?

They lied to the FBI. A crime in and of itself, and a point you seem to be fervently avoiding.

 

[Emjay]

They lied to the FBI. A crime in and of itself, and a point you seem to be fervently avoiding.

It is NOT a crime in and of itself UNLESS the lie is MATERIAL to an FBI investigation. In other words, if you tell the FBI that you had eggs for breakfast when you really had bacon, unless you stole the pig, the FBI has no business charging you for lying to them. Do you have a problem understanding basic English?

 

[Emjay]

And people still want to argue that any corporate media are unbiased and are credible?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259532906722197504

 

[cerebus]

It is NOT a crime in and of itself UNLESS the lie is MATERIAL to an FBI investigation. In other words, if you tell the FBI that you had eggs for breakfast when you really had bacon, unless you stole the pig, the FBI has no business charging you for lying to them. Do you have a problem understanding basic English?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/10/long-list-people-who-thought-flynns-lies-were-material/

Were his lies material, as required by the statute to which he pleaded guilty? Absolutely. For those of us who spent a professional lifetime as prosecutors and in the Justice Department, this is not a close call.

Had Flynn been asked his favorite ice cream flavor by FBI agents and told them it was vanilla when he preferred chocolate, that would be immaterial. But lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Russian diplomat, given his financial and other ties to Russia, in the wake of massive Russian interference in our 2016 election, and during an FBI counterintelligence investigation concerning Russia? That is material — plain and simple.

President Trump thought Flynn’s lies were material. He fired Flynn in 2017 for lying to Vice President Pence and tweeted that year that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, according to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, recalled that Trump was angry at Flynn for lying about the conversation he had with the Russian diplomat.

Vice President Pence thought Flynn’s lies were material, stating he knew at the time Flynn was fired that Flynn “lied to me” and that “the president made the right decision [to fire] him.” It seems that Flynn’s lies were material to Trump and Pence.

Senior Justice Department officials, including acting attorney general Sally Yates and National Security Division Chief Mary McCord, thought Flynn’s lies were material, because, as the Mueller report noted, they were concerned it “[created] a compromise situation for Flynn because … the Russian government could prove Flynn lied.” That, as the report further noted, afforded leverage over Flynn such that Russia “could use that derogatory information to compromise [Flynn].”

Federal prosecutors detailed to the Special Counsel’s Office thought Flynn’s lies were material. They signed their names to court documents that outlined the facts that supported his guilty plea, including the material false statements Flynn made. That six-page statement of the offense is part of the public record.

Federal District Judge Rudolph Contreras thought Flynn’s lies were material. Flynn pleaded guilty to the charge of making a material false statement in his courtroom in December 2017. A judge will accept a guilty plea in federal court only if there is a factual basis for it and only if all the elements of the offense are proved. If the judge did not believe the lies were material, he presumably would not have accepted the plea agreement.




Etc...

 

[AlmightyBender]

It is NOT a crime in and of itself UNLESS the lie is MATERIAL to an FBI investigation. In other words, if you tell the FBI that you had eggs for breakfast when you really had bacon, unless you stole the pig, the FBI has no business charging you for lying to them. Do you have a problem understanding basic English?

Mr. Van Grack had said in earlier court filings that the “topics of sanctions went to the heart of the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation.” He said that “any effort to undermine those sanctions could have been evidence of links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Judge Sullivan had also said that Mr. Flynn’s statements were material to the Russia inquiry.

U.S. Drops Michael Flynn Case, in Move Backed by Trump (Published 2020)

The extraordinary move came after Mr. Flynn, the former national security adviser, fought the case in court for months, a reversal after pleading guilty twice and cooperating with investigators.

www.nytimes.com

Do you have a problem regarding a Federal Judge disagreeing with your narrative?

 

[greg0205]

It is NOT a crime in and of itself UNLESS the lie is MATERIAL to an FBI investigation. In other words, if you tell the FBI that you had eggs for breakfast when you really had bacon, unless you stole the pig, the FBI has no business charging you for lying to them. Do you have a problem understanding basic English?

Read this today. Thought of you...

But Trump and his supporters need to keep up their attack on the Russia probe for one final reason: Bob Mueller’s findings were actually devastating for the president, and only by continually promoting belief in the evils of the investigation can Trump’s defenders evade the importance and magnitude of those findings. No, Mueller didn’t prosecute anyone for collusion. But the portrait painted in Volume I of his report was of a campaign eager to benefit from Russian electoral interference, in touch with a wide range of Russian operatives and cutouts, and frankly uninterested in the basics of loyalty and patriotism. And the portrait in Volume II was of repeated efforts—arguably criminal—to stymie the investigation of that earlier conduct.

Slacken just a little your attack on the investigators, and the reality of what Mueller described becomes discomforting. Go easy even for a moment on the latest Flynn revelation, and you might have to ask about the more than 60,000 Americans who have died over the past few months of a virus for which the country was wholly unprepared.

Stop waving your hands about Strzok and Page and the “entrapment” of Flynn, even briefly, and you might have to start asking what other nonsense you’ve been propagating in defense of the indefensible.

To Trump, ‘Complete and Total Exoneration’ Is Always Right Around the Corner

The president and his supporters continue to fixate on the Russia investigation, perpetually expecting redemption.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[rietrot]

U.S. Drops Michael Flynn Case, in Move Backed by Trump (Published 2020)

The extraordinary move came after Mr. Flynn, the former national security adviser, fought the case in court for months, a reversal after pleading guilty twice and cooperating with investigators.

www.nytimes.com

Do you have a problem regarding a Federal Judge disagreeing with your narrative?

This whole thing was BS in anyway as the Russian enquiry was BS.
BS build upon BS.

And now the left is arguing to sent Flynn to jail for a few days when they are letting criminals out because of the Corona mess and wanting everyone to stay home under lockdown.

There's just no consistency. The only consistency is that it is all BS.

 

[rietrot]

I say Flynn sould do a week or two under house arrest.

 

[Emjay]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/10/long-list-people-who-thought-flynns-lies-were-material/

Were his lies material, as required by the statute to which he pleaded guilty? Absolutely. For those of us who spent a professional lifetime as prosecutors and in the Justice Department, this is not a close call.

Had Flynn been asked his favorite ice cream flavor by FBI agents and told them it was vanilla when he preferred chocolate, that would be immaterial. But lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Russian diplomat, given his financial and other ties to Russia, in the wake of massive Russian interference in our 2016 election, and during an FBI counterintelligence investigation concerning Russia? That is material — plain and simple.

President Trump thought Flynn’s lies were material. He fired Flynn in 2017 for lying to Vice President Pence and tweeted that year that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, according to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, recalled that Trump was angry at Flynn for lying about the conversation he had with the Russian diplomat.

Vice President Pence thought Flynn’s lies were material, stating he knew at the time Flynn was fired that Flynn “lied to me” and that “the president made the right decision [to fire] him.” It seems that Flynn’s lies were material to Trump and Pence.

Senior Justice Department officials, including acting attorney general Sally Yates and National Security Division Chief Mary McCord, thought Flynn’s lies were material, because, as the Mueller report noted, they were concerned it “[created] a compromise situation for Flynn because … the Russian government could prove Flynn lied.” That, as the report further noted, afforded leverage over Flynn such that Russia “could use that derogatory information to compromise [Flynn].”

Federal prosecutors detailed to the Special Counsel’s Office thought Flynn’s lies were material. They signed their names to court documents that outlined the facts that supported his guilty plea, including the material false statements Flynn made. That six-page statement of the offense is part of the public record.

Federal District Judge Rudolph Contreras thought Flynn’s lies were material. Flynn pleaded guilty to the charge of making a material false statement in his courtroom in December 2017. A judge will accept a guilty plea in federal court only if there is a factual basis for it and only if all the elements of the offense are proved. If the judge did not believe the lies were material, he presumably would not have accepted the plea agreement.




Etc...

Let's get to the crux of the matter.

"But lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Russian diplomat, given his financial and other ties to Russia, in the wake of massive Russian interference in our 2016 election, and during an FBI counterintelligence investigation concerning Russia? That is material — plain and simple."

The FBI had already done an investigation on this front and determined that there was no derogatory evidence against Flynn. They were ready to close the investigation and this is a matter of record. Strzok held the investigation open by way of his Logan Act idea, which means that Flynn's lie regarding his conversation with Kislyak would not have been material to any ongoing investigation, especially since Flynn was entitled to discuss diplomatic issues with Kislyak as incoming national security advisor.