Bulldog73 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/god-damn-you-to-hell-michael-caputo-tells-senate-intelligence-in-russia-investigation-testimony?platform=hootsuite

Quote:

---

Caputo accused members of the Senate Intelligence Committee of working together and contributing to the "swamp" a term often used by President Trump to describe the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

This point Caputo illustrated by arguing Daniel Jones, a former Senate Intelligence staffer to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was one of two sources in a recent McClatchy report about Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen a report that Cohen himself denies.

"But who is McClatchy's second source? It couldn't be Dan; he was the first source ... So who could it be perhaps one of his former Senate Intelligence colleagues? I mean, you're all in this together. You're the swamp."

Caputo called for an "investigation of the investigators" and said he wanted to know who was "coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump."

"Forget about all the death threats against my family. I want to know who cost us so much money, who crushed our kids, who forced us out of our home, all because you lost an election," Caputo said. "I want to know because *********you to hell."

---

---

Straight out of the Dem playbook. When you've got nothing, financially ruin your enemy. Bankrupt a few like Caputo and Flynn, and bring anonymous and groundless attacks on the reputation of others with the complicity of a few pet "journalist", and anyone else thinking about aiding the enemy will just melt into the swamp. The Dems have perfected the art of groundless personal destruction for political gain, and their fanboys here and elsewhere think it's perfectly justifiable and even laudable. It's a sickness.

---

I think it was Hillary who coined the phrase "politics of personal destruction".

May the Lord bring recompense and justice!

Quote:

---

I think it was Hillary who coined the phrase "politics of personal destruction".

---

Yep

drcrinum said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Flynn committed a crime because he couldn't recall what someone told him during a conversation?

---

You also need to understand that Flynn is a master spook. Spooks don't ever give you a straight answer under direct questioning. They speak a complex language of ambiguous dialect, unless reading from a prepared speech with a specific intent or topic. Ever listen to one of the Carter Page interviews on TV? Boy is he ever difficult to follow, and he is just a green belt compared to a black belt like General Flynn.

---

The FBI came away believing that General Flynn had told them the truth.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is what happens when a cops/prosecutors are not measured by the fairness of their work, but by how many people they can put in jail, rightfully or wrongly. Joe Friday has been gone for a long time.

---

So pathetically true.

Made even worse by the Obama and the BLM movement. Now police departments feel like they are walking on egg shells whenever they arrest a person of color.

However, if it's a white guy breaking the law ... they throw the book at him.

Thank you Democrats for screwing up our justice system.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

I am not sure about that. It would make little sense to allow a President to be subject to process in a civil case wherein legal jeopardy could ensue, yet not allow it in a criminal probe in which he is not a target.

I will grant that the President cannot be a target in the traditional sense because he cannot be prosecuted while in office but he/she is not above the law of compulsory process just because of that fact.

Roscoe, I am genuinely curious what kind of Brady evidence you are hoping comes forward about Flynn's guilty plea that would either cause the judge to dismiss it or for Mueller's team to dismiss it. Because as it stands right now, I don't see anything that would cause that to happen. The only thing I can see is somebody bombshell revelation that the whole SC is a sham, and everything should be dismissed, and I personally don't believe that is in the cards. I also think that Judge Sullivan is a straight shooter and that he's not going to deal with any funny business by Mueller, but all we've seen so far from Judge Sullivan is two Brady orders (which are standard for him in all of his cases), motions for a protective order regarding discovery, and denial of a bunch of other junk filed by wingnuts attempting to intervene on Flynn's behalf (one of those is titled "Mankind's Death Certificate was Signed on October 12, 2050 with not so much asa Whimper." Sadly, that document isn't available on PACER).

I agree that Flynn likey pled to either protect himself of other things he was involved with, he's protecting his son that may have done some shady things, or he's taking the fall for a bigger fish. That's the bargain he took, and if he does everything he agreed to in his plea agreement, the prosecutor is going to recommend a sentence of 0-6 months (assuming I am reading the plea agreement correctly). So it is very possible at the end of all this when it comes time for sentencing, he serves no time.

In my opinion, the Brady order(s) issued by Judge Sullivan aren't a grand revelation that's going to set Flynn free, based on what we know right now.

HTownAg98 said:

---

...

I agree that Flynn likey pled to either protect himself of other things he was involved with, he's protecting his son that may have done some shady things, or he's taking the fall for a bigger fish...

---

He's protecting his son from being destroyed personally by the media and financially by Mueller, that's all.

He was not making a deal until Mueller's team leaked that they were looking into Flynn's son, which, WTF does that have to do with the 2016 election?

This is a prime example of a leak that only could've come from Mueller's team.

akm91 said:

---

Just don't quote or respond to the troll.

---

I can't even see the trolls posts - ignore feature is really really useful feature.

if no one sees a post....did it happen?

Lot Y Tailgate said:

---

Mueller did not have anything to do with the Whitey Bulger investigation.

---

Flat out lie.

Quote:

---

• James 'Whitey' Bulger: a notorious gangster and murderer from Boston, who was also a long time confidential informant of the FBI.
• During the 1980s, Mueller served as an assistant US attorney and then as the acting US attorney in Boston. The FBI was under his supervision during the time Bulger was an informant.
• In 1965 four men were convicted of a murder that the FBI later learned they did not commit. Three of the men faced death sentences.


• The FBI had learned during the time Bulger was an informant that the men did not commit the murders. The men served decades in prison and two of them died in prison.
• A jury trial revealed that the FBI had known the men were innocent but withheld the evidence from state law enforcement authorities.
• In 2007, a jury awarded more than $101 million in damages to the surviving men and their families.
• However, during the time the men were in prison Mueller wrote multiple letters to the parole and pardons board opposing clemency for the four men. Mueller never answered questions as to what he knew about the case or if he was aware of the men's innocence, as reported extensively by Kevin Cullen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer with the Boston Globe.

---

Mueller and Bulger

Damn you!

HTownAg98 said:

---

Roscoe, I am genuinely curious what kind of Brady evidence you are hoping comes forward about Flynn's guilty plea that would either cause the judge to dismiss it or for Mueller's team to dismiss it. Because as it stands right now, I don't see anything that would cause that to happen.

---

You probably ought to go back and re-read this thread. The Strzok-Page text message history shows that the 302 interview forms were altered after the fact.

There were also substantial internal communications about the motivation to "get" Flynn.

The problem is that these issues are visible even to the public.

I see it as highly problematic to use the force of the U.S. government to settle personal and political scores. That is what appears to be going on in this case.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, the Brady order(s) issued by Judge Sullivan aren't a grand revelation that's going to set Flynn free, based on what we know right now.

---

You're sort of correct on the Brady order. Its SOP for Sullivan specifically so he can hold government lawyers that don't fulfill their duties in criminal contempt of court. It just puts prosecutors on notice that they're in a world of **** if they don't do their duty. He started doing this after the botched Ted Stevens prosecution where the special counsel appointed to investigate government behavior recommended against criminal contempt because they had no notice that they were subject to criminal liability. As a result, he issues this to avoid that pitfall.

What they may be saying is that there is zero means of enforcing him to testify while he is in office, outside of removing him from office first.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Because if he can manage to get anything on the POTUS that he can send to the Dems in congress, him backing out of the Flynn case won't have the political fall out.

---

This is the crux of the problem. It turns out that Mueller has trick-****ed himself into an inescapable corner -- hence the release of those goofy questions yesterday. He's fishing and asking anyone with a rod and reel to get it out and fish with him.

Otherwise, the timeline for his survival is short. Either do what he knows to be right and dismiss the case against Flynn (thereby cutting off his own ball sack) or play the waiting game and hope to make it to midterms or catch a fish. Problem is that the timeline has an end and he's in front of an article III judge who already has a bad taste in his mouth for dirty prosecutors.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What they may be saying is that there is zero means of enforcing him to testify while he is in office, outside of removing him from office first.

---

He can't be jailed, true. He can still be held in contempt of court. If subpoenaed, move to quash it and let SCOTUS decide.

Feeding the seagulls

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What they may be saying is that there is zero means of enforcing him to testify while he is in office, outside of removing him from office first.

---

He can't be jailed, true. He can still be held in contempt of court. If subpoenaed, move to quash it and let SCOTUS decide.

---

What can SCOTUS do that can be enforced on a sitting president?

Meh_ said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What they may be saying is that there is zero means of enforcing him to testify while he is in office, outside of removing him from office first.

---

He can't be jailed, true. He can still be held in contempt of court. If subpoenaed, move to quash it and let SCOTUS decide.

---

What can SCOTUS do that can be enforced on a sitting president?

---

They can decide that a sitting President is subject to compulsory process. They did it to Clinton. They did it to Nixon on the White House tapes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Dershowitz just had a great idea. Trump should answer those questions in writing, publicly. (Very carefully, of course, asserting Executive Privilege and Article II Powers where appropriate.) Dare Mueller to get the grand jury to issue a subpoena, then move to quash.

He's already answered the questions to the extent he can, he has Article II powers to pardon and to fire whomever he so chooses. Moreover, Comey was fired on the recommendation of Mueller's boss, Rosenstein. Hammer that point.

---

I saw that as well, the big Kahuna is on his game this morning

And on top of that, declassify them and make the answers public. Two can play the Mockingbird game.

aggiehawg said:

---

Meh_ said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What they may be saying is that there is zero means of enforcing him to testify while he is in office, outside of removing him from office first.

---

He can't be jailed, true. He can still be held in contempt of court. If subpoenaed, move to quash it and let SCOTUS decide.

---

What can SCOTUS do that can be enforced on a sitting president?

---

They can decide that a sitting President is subject to compulsory process. They did it to Clinton. They did it to Nixon on the White House tapes.

---

Actually I thought Clinton volunteered and Star withdrew the subpoena and it was never acted upon, and Bill stepped in it when he lied.

Edit:

Quote:

---

President Clinton agreed today to submit to questioning at the White House by Federal prosecutors in the Lewinsky investigation after the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, withdrew an unprecedented subpoena to compel his testimony.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/us/testing-president-overview-clinton-agrees-testify-for-lewinsky-grand-jury-starr.html

Quote:

---

Actually I thought Clinton volunteered and Star withdrew the subpoena and it was never acted upon, and Bill stepped in it when he lied.

---

The Jones case went to the Supreme Court before any of that happened. Clinton lost.

Ah okay I regress

But that brings to question, what crime is the issue. Jones was a civil matter that happened prior to being POTUS. Trying to see how that bears on this case.

Quote:

---

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In the unanimous opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.

The court ruled that they did not need to decide "whether a claim comparable to petitioner's assertion of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal" (a state court), but noted that "If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation-of-powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns".

The court also found that "our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place."

In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.

---

Starr likely would have been successful had he pressed the subpoena, which is why Clinton folded, IMO. Jones was before he was President but Lewinsky was during his Presidency. And Clinton was facing witness tampering and subornation of perjury charges in relation to Starr's investigation. (Having his secretary, Betty Currie lie for instance.)

The only thing Mueller has while Trump has been in office is the firing of Comey being twisted to some type of obstruction of justice charge. One which SCOTUS will likely pooh-pooh, immediately.