If "unregistered foreign lobbying" was equally prosecuted, half of Washington would be in prison. And if Manafort hadn't worked for Trump, if Flynn hadn't worked for Trump, if Cohen hadn't worked Trump, none of them are ever targeted or prosecuted. Also, you could throw a BB in DC in any damn direction, and hit somebody guilty of the same damn thing

BMX Bandit said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Federal prosecutors charged two men involved in ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's Turkish lobbying. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

---

The Schutzstaffel is starting to round up political enemies. What a great time to be alive.

---

takes a special kind of brazen ignorance to call the US Attorney for EDVA a part of the "Schutzstaffel." Well done.

---

Only to add a little knowledge to the reference:

Quote:

---

With the reinterpretation of "protective custody" (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrestwithout judicial reviewof real and potential opponents of the regime. "Protective custody" prisoners were not confined within the normal prison system but in concentration camps under the exclusive authority of the SS (Schutzstaffel; the elite guard of the Nazi state).

The Third Reich has been called a dual state, since the normal judicial system coexisted with the arbitrary power of Hitler and the police. Yet, like most areas of public life after the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the German system of justice underwent "coordination" (alignment with Nazi goals). All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists....

---

Thanks for additional info on why the comparison is complete garbage

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

If "unregistered foreign lobbying" was equally prosecuted, half of Washington would be in prison. And if Manafort hadn't worked for Trump, if Flynn hadn't worked for Trump, if Cohen hadn't worked Trump, none of them are ever targeted or prosecuted. Also, you could throw a BB in DC in any damn direction, and hit somebody guilty of the same damn thing

---

Where are the Podesta indictments?

So was Flynn kept in the dark?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/17/heres-whats-weird-robert-muellers-latest-michael-flynn-filing/

Quote:

---

.....Docket entry 50 then consists of Flynn's redacted sentencing memorandum and the next entry is Friday's recording at docket 56 of the government's reply brief. That leaves the five docket entries between 50 and 56 unaccounted for.

The most logical explanation for this void? A motion filed by Mueller's office to keep the original 302 material sealed, as well as Mueller's motion to file unredacted versions of the Strzok's 302 statement and McCabe's January 24, 2017 memorandum under seal. Flynn may have filed his own motion to seal or may have filed a response to the special counsel's motion.

We will know more this week, when Sullivan rules on the presumably filed motions to seal. But given these facts, it would be unwise to assume Mueller's team ignored Sullivan's order, or that the lack of a filing indicates that the earlier 302 was destroyed......

---

Per Professor Cleveland, Sullivan likely has an unredacted copy of Strzok's original 302 as well as an unredacted copy of McCabe's
Interesting long read...goes into lots of additional details about Comey & Mueller.

Since someone else brought in Mr. Imperator Rex, here is an article from today.

https://www.quodverum.com/2018/12/351/the-great-sacrifice-how-lt-general-michael-flynn-saved-the-trump-presidency.html

drcrinum said:

---

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/17/heres-whats-weird-robert-muellers-latest-michael-flynn-filing/

Quote:

---

.....Docket entry 50 then consists of Flynn's redacted sentencing memorandum and the next entry is Friday's recording at docket 56 of the government's reply brief. That leaves the five docket entries between 50 and 56 unaccounted for.

The most logical explanation for this void? A motion filed by Mueller's office to keep the original 302 material sealed, as well as Mueller's motion to file unredacted versions of the Strzok's 302 statement and McCabe's January 24, 2017 memorandum under seal. Flynn may have filed his own motion to seal or may have filed a response to the special counsel's motion.

We will know more this week, when Sullivan rules on the presumably filed motions to seal. But given these facts, it would be unwise to assume Mueller's team ignored Sullivan's order, or that the lack of a filing indicates that the earlier 302 was destroyed......

---

Per Professor Cleveland, Sullivan likely has an unredacted copy of Strzok's original 302 as well as an unredacted copy of McCabe's
Interesting long read...goes into lots of additional details about Comey & Mueller.

---

If they were submitted as sealed; were they previously provided to defendent's counsel as requested by the judge (as potential exculpatory evidence)?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

If they were submitted as sealed; were they previously provided to defendent's counsel as requested by the judge (as potential exculpatory evidence)?

---

We don't know...yet.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

So one last chance to file the unredacted 302 if it exists? Tomorrow is the hearing...

I do not read it as him interpreting the law, merely saying that it appears the FBI went into the meeting with one hope and purpose (ie, a perjury trap), and he is saying that he does not believe the FBI should be operating that way.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Another example of bad legal advice on the internet. But it will be lapped up because people want it to be true.

NM

Or a Godwinly hyperbolic reference to a dual justice system?

Nvm. Don't want to get it locked just remember to be careful.

Dershowitz responds.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Nvm. Don't want to get it locked just remember to be careful.

---

Yes you are correct. Gonna remove it.

Of course it could still be deemed "material" legally in that circumstance.

However, the question of whether the FBI should be setting up a person to lie in that situation is a different issue and is a valid question. I'm glad this is all come to light, because for most people we would never know about it

drcrinum said:

---

Dershowitz responds.

---

So, he's arguing for a change in the law? Seems the case law is clear.

Read more carefully: he is not saying Flynn was in the right. He IS saying appearances are that this was purely a setup to create a trap for the witness regarding information that they had a perfect first hand version of (recording). The intent may have been to intimidate the witness into cooperation on other matters, or whatever.

What he IS saying is it is improper and unethical for an investigative agency to conduct an interview with the sole purpose of creating an opportunity for catching someone in a lie regarding information they already possess in full. They only asked him questions about things they already had detailed and verified information on.

They didn't ask any why, just what and when.

Dersh is saying that type of act may be legal but is ethically improper and should not be FBI policy, the way I read it.

Imagine the FBI found pretext to record you without your knowledge. Just some random conversation. Then they ask you to recount precise details of it weeks later. Not anything to extend meaning or provide interpretation of what you said, but only exactly what you said to whom and when.

If it was any kind of substantial conversation, do you think you could recall it exactly, with only a pass/fail option for any factual error?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Of course it could still be deemed "material" legally in that circumstance.

However, the question of whether the FBI should be setting up a person to lie in that situation is a different issue and is a valid question. I'm glad this is all come to light, because for most people we would never know about it

---

Considering he was being questioned under a secret counter-intel investigation, in which he was a likely target, anything he said could be deemed material. It was that amorphous of an investigation.

Yates threw a fit when she was told after the fact and then hightailed it to the WH to come up with the bogus Logan Act violation to justify it. I guess technically Flynn even speaking with Kislyak could be a Logan Act violation regardless of the substance of the conversation but because there has never been a prosecution under it, we just don't know.

Respectfully, I think you need to read more carefully because you are implying more than he actually stated if reading his tweet at face value.

He plainly says at the beginning of his tweet that "a false answer is not material" if the FBI already knew the answer to the question before asking. That is flatly incorrect, legally speaking. If he wanted to express his opinion on what the law should be or what he believes is ethical, he knows how to do that.

So his statement was either idiotic, terribly worded, or intentionally misleading

But Masaxet, you have to concede that Comey's statement along with McCabe's as to how that interview even happened pretty much confirms the intent was to get Flynn and that they were disappointed they didn't seem to get what they were after.

McCabe's statement, not a "great way to start a false statement case." What they were after.

I'm going with badly worded. Twitter brevity often contributes to that

aggiehawg said:

---

But Masaxet, you have to concede that Comey's statement along with McCabe's as to how that interview even happened pretty much confirms the intent was to get Flynn and that they were disappointed they didn't seem to get what they were after.

McCabe's statement, not a "great way to start a false statement case." What they were after.

---

And none of that has any impact on Dershowitz's statement being wrong. FBI officials interview people every single day asking questions they know the answer to in an effort to see if the individual will lie so leverage will be obtained. Plenty of cases have held that is legal, a false statement in that context is material, and it's not entrapment.

Again, I'm all for the conversation about whether certain processes and procedures that have been ongoing for a long time should change (and there are plenty of examples in the Russia affair and Mueller investigation). This seemingly newfound libertarian bent from many people because the tactics are now being used one of their own is just somewhat comical (not referring to Dershowitz in this regard)

Quote:

---

And none of that has any impact on Dershowitz's statement being wrong.

---

Not if you look at it from his perspective. He protects civil liberties, even Klaus Von Bulow's and even Epstein's, a pedo.

Justice system is rigged in favor of the prosecutions, until the Supremes step in and curb the obvious abuses. Miranda, Gideon, Furman and a host of other cases. Saddest part of Rehnquist's term as Chief Justice was his weakness on the Fourth Amendment. He broadened it way too far, in my view, which has led us to this point where the NSA collects all of the garbage one spews anywhere and DOJ can craft a crime if they so desire.

Big Brother met the police state, married and now have been quite prolific in their spawn. And our republic suffers because of it.