Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope no lies. Sorry charley.

Again educate yourself on the law before making a false claim.

In other words blindly regurgitate right wing propaganda.

No it means educate yourself on the facts surrounding criminal law before making a false claim based on left wing paranoia and fantasy land thinking.

An improperly obtained warrant can negate any evidence collected as a result. Some warrants also contain trigger conditions which, if violated, can also render the warrant invalid.

A warrant is based on an affidavit by a qualified person who has probable cause to believe a crime occurred. Misrepresenting facts, say submitting a warrant to monitor US citizens by leading the judge to believe the info in the warrant is factual instead of unconfirmed / unverified, can invalidate the warrant and any evidence collected because of it.

In the 1980s in California this occurred when the local police obtained warrants for 3 residences on drug trafficking grounds. Based on the warrants and what actually occurred / submitted the seizure of drug evidence was in fact suppressed because of the violation. That case started locally and ended up federal due to the amount of drugs seized.

A FISA warrant is no different and the standards are exactly the same. The only difference with FISA warrants is it deals with matters of national security and therefore can be restricted in terms of who can see them.

My personal opinion is how can justice that is served in secret be justice.

Secondly you nor anyone else from the left would be making the argument you are if Democrats were in the cross hairs. When Democrats start getting indicted IO look forward to your response.

a reply to: GuidedKill

It says he falsely stated that "he did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him...."

a reply to: xuenchen

He did do some stupid and shady things that supposedly he didn't disclose. Not very military-like.

Kinda disappointed in him because of his Military Background.

Wonder how many Ex-Generals ect, become lobbyists for Defense Contractors or other Countries? That doesn't sit well with me. Especially with the Current Navy Scandal.

We will see how this plays out.

lol

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GuidedKill

It says he falsely stated that "he did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him...."

Spoken like a True Politician. Al Franken would be proud.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no such crime as collusion in federal criminal statutes.

The people charged / indicted thus far have nothing close to collusion as a charge.

I know that and you know that. That is why your posts are disingenuous.

While there is no crime of collusion, by that name itself, there are other crimes that could potentially be violated that are equal to the act of "colluding". It all depends on how and why they "colluded" that determines the actual crime.

Talking to the Russians is not against the law. Lying to the FBI is, and that is where Flynn is at.

True, and it may not stop there when all is said and done.

a reply to: Sublimecraft


That's not surprising. Donald Trump has always wanted to work with Vladimir Putin as a friend, instead of the U.S. Russia being enemies. Stated that often.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know that word in the context you've used it.
Did you mean you're awake?
Woke is the past tense of wake. What are you actually saying my dear?

That's because you live in an insulated white woman world of privilege where you just point your finger at non-Democrats and call them racists, but you don't actually associate with black people:

Woke is a political term of black origin which refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.

Wiipedia

But I already suspected this about you, so I really am not surprised.

Savage burn. With a persistent sting of truth.

So that's it? He was caught lying to the FBI?

Big effing deal....


The FBI lies all the time and there's no punishment for them!


Judicial Watch says FBI has found Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting documents
www.foxnews.com...

The FBI initially did not find any documents or records related to the tarmac meeting, according to an FBI letter reviewed by Fox News, but in a related case this summer, the Justice Department recovered email correspondence regarding the meeting.

“Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist,” the FBI wrote to Judicial Watch in a letter on Aug. 10. The FBI wrote that the request had been “reopened” and is “currently in the process of searching for any responsive material.”

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Xcathdra

In my reply to you, I detailed some specific cases of collusion that would be illegal. What do you think the left considers collusion?

Anyone not associated with the Clinton campaign talking to anyone from Russia.

Never mind the fact Clinton made contact with Ukrainian officials for dirt on Trump.

The mindset of the left that its only a crime id committed by anyone other than themselves will be their undoing.

As for conspiracy it requires 2 or more people actively working together / coordinating to knowingly violate an established law. Talking to Russian about political issues is not against the law.

Failing to tell the truth to the FBI is.
Failing to register under FARA is.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GuidedKill

It says he falsely stated that "he did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him...."

Yes that means he said he didn't have the conversation. If he would have answered I don't recall the conversation I think he would have been ok.


What is in the indictment is not a quotation of what Flynn told the special council. It's what they are charging him with. I don't know why they say it that way but believe me statements or quotes from the defendant are not in indictments.

a reply to: face23785

No, old boy, President Orrin Hatch.

Ryan dipped too many fingers in this pond.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: introvert

Perhaps "conspiring with" is a better legal term...

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.

"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."

Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.

"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."

In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.

Link

< br />
Yes, that is a better term to use, as "collusion" has become a term used by the Right to dismiss any potential crimes whatsoever.

It's a dishonest propaganda talking point.

As far as any crimes that may fall in to that category, I do not know. We have to wait and see. To dismiss it at this point outright seems to be illogical.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: xuenchen

He did do some stupid and shady things that supposedly he didn't disclose. Not very military-like.

Kinda disappointed in him because of his Military Background.

Wonder how many Ex-Generals ect, become lobbyists for Defense Contractors or other Countries? That doesn't sit well with me. Especially with the Current Navy Scandal.

We will see how this plays out.

It's a double-edged sword. Those guys are often the most qualified people to do those jobs. They also have the most connections so it's more prone to cronyism. I'm not sure how you fix it to be honest.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: Xcathdra

Collusion is the wrong word here.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law to take favors from a hostile foreign nation during an election.
And it sure looks like team Cheeto was more than willing to play ball with Ivan...

That is why I challenge the use of the term collusion in this mess.

a reply to: face23785

Maybe. But Pence and Flynn are both on record saying he lied. Do you have any reason to doubt that besides wishful thinking?

Here are the fact that we have to consider:


* Dec 29th, Obama administration sanctions Russians. That day, Flynn talks to Kislyak about sanctions.

* Dec 30th, Putin announces that Russia will take no action in response to new sanctions.

* Jan 4th, Flynn told the Trump transition team lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, that he was currently under investigation for lobbying for Turkey.

* Jan 12th, WaPo breaks story that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

* Jan 13th, Sean Spicer denies report.

* Jan 14th, Flynn and Pence reportedly spoke about his communications with Kislyak.

* Jan 15th, Pence says Flynn calls to Kislyak had nothing to do with sanctions.

* Jan 20th, inuaguration

* Jan 23rd, Sean Spicer in his first official press briefing, lies about Flynn communications.

* Jan 24th, Flynn lies to FBI.

* Jan 26th, Sally Yates goes to the WH and warns the administration that Flynn was lying.

* Jan 27th, McGahn asks Yates to come back to WH to discuss Flynn. They agree that she'll return on Jan 30th with evidence in hand.

* Jan 30th, Yates is canned, ostensibly for not enforcing travel ban.

* Feb 7th, Flynn denies having discussed sanctions with Kislyak to WaPo reporters. Same day, GOP senators announce legislation to prevent Trump from lifting sanctions on Russia.

* Feb 8th, Flynn changes course, says he can't remember if sanctions were disucssed.

* Feb 9th, WaPo story contradicts claims, citing 9 anonymous sources.

* Feb 10th, Trump claims that he doesn't know anything about Flynn situation.

* Feb 13th, Kellyanne Conway says Flynn has full confidence of Trump. WaPo breaks another story, claiming (rightly) that Trump admin has known for weeks that Flynn was lying. Flynn "resigns."

* Feb 14th, Trump tells Comey that he hopes Comey "can let this go" in regards to Flynn.

* Mar 7th, Flynn files FARA registration confirming lobbying for Turkey.

* Mar 9th, Pence tells Bret Baier that he'd just learned of Flynn's lobbying for Turkey.


I find it beyond belief that Pence didn't know about Flynn's lobbying for Turkey. The entire administration is full of #. The obvious pattern is that they lie until the lies cannot be sustained any longer.

a reply to: xuenchen

Stocks just fell as word got out Flynn will testify against Trump

www.thedailybeast.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

Well if Flynn told the Russians not to worry about Obama's sanctions, why hasn't Trump lifted those sanctions?

he has floated the idea of doing so a few time publicly though, probably was told how unwise it would be while this whole mess was under investigation???

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

President Pence? Or President Ryan?

That's a great question.
My guess is that Pence knows way more; if so, Flynn could be spilling the beans about him too.
And if the dirty Russian money extended further than the Trump campaign--i.e., into the coffers of the GOP itself--and Ryan knew about it (and there is actually some reporting out there suggesting that he did know and is on tape acknowledging it), it could be President Hatch. How weird would that be? Long odds, I would say, but funny to contemplate. We'd hear all about the White Horse prophecy being fulfilled...

originally posted by: TheOneElectric
a reply to: face23785

No, old boy, President Orrin Hatch.

Ryan dipped too many fingers in this pond.

I suppose you have some reason to think that besides wishful thinking too? You guys just keep outdoing yourselves with the making # up.