billsfan1959

And the reason many of them do walk out of prison is because they were not actually guilty of the crime they pled guilty to or were convicted of. See how easy that was?

The Innocence Project says hello...

In the example I gave, Dixon was guilty in the eyes of the law. He was not actually guilty of the crime - for that to be true he would have actually had to have raped the victim. He didn't. They are not one and the same. The fact that you actually believe they are discredits any opinion you have because it is clear you have no interest intellectual honesty.

In July 1991, John Dixon pled guilty to first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, two counts of first degree aggravated sexual assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree. He later asked the judge to withdraw his plea and perform DNA testing, claiming his plea was induced by fear of a harsher sentence if convicted by jury. The court denied Dixon’s motion and he was sentenced to forty-five years with a fifteen year parole eligibility disqualifer. Testing on the rape kit samples were eventually completed by the New Jersey State Police Laboratory in 2001. The results indicated that Dixon could not have been the source of spermatozoa collected from the victim. His conviction was vacated on November 29, 2001, and he was released the next week. He served ten years of his conviction. In 1991, Dixon was legally guilty. Was he actually guilty?

Since I joined this forum four years before @Deranged Rhino, wouldn't that make him me? Don't you ever tire of trying to turn idiocy into an olympic sport?

Flynn is legally guilty at the moment. I have never disputed that. However, can you agree there can be a distinction between guilt from a legal perspective and actual guilt?

One has nothing to do with the other. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact (1) a full unredacted report cannot be released and (2) your apparent complete ignorance on why, I could not care less whether or not a full unredacted version is ever released. It has nothing to do with my assessment of Mueller.

Don't. He is an arrogant pr**k who has left an incalculable level of destruction in his wake...

Flynn did plead guilty and I am not disputing that. However, it is not like defendants have never entered guilty pleas to something they didn't really believe they did because it avoided the potential of something much worse. Setting politics aside and speaking strictly from the perspective of effective representation, I have serious questions about the attorneys that originally represented him, and I could give you a number of issues that raise real concerns for me. Although, I grant you that IAC is a difficult path to take. I don't think it will be necessary in this case. The facts that I outlined were not known at the time Flynn entered his plea and more information is continuing to surface.

For me, the goal of an investigation is to determine the truth about what happened. Holding people accountable for wrongdoing is a consideration based on facts and evidence - but never a goal. People will interpret reality according to their own psychology. For some, it is so distorted that their "truth" will always be whatever they need it to be, regardless of prosecutions and convictions. For most of us, the truth is what the facts say it is. I believe we are in agreement for the most part, my friend: If crimes were committed and the elements of those offenses are met, then the individuals who committed those crimes should be prosecuted.

Well said and 100% spot on

I like what Barr said and I agree completely. The use of the criminal justice system for political ends is abhorrent and shouldn't happen. If any charges come out of the Durham investigation, they need to be legitimate, meaning just what Barr said, that each element of any offense needs to be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it really isn't about charging and prosecuting anyone. It is about determining the truth about what transpired, showing that truth to the American people, and taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it is legitimately determined that criminal offenses were committed, then charges should be brought against those that committed them.

Always good stuff DR. Just to add for @Magox and others: 1) It was clearly stated in the closing memorandum, dated 4 Jan 2017, that the investigation (Crossfire Razor) had not disclosed any information indicating Flynn had done anything wrong, that he was "no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case," and that they had no information "on which to predicate further investigative effort." There was nothing there and nothing to justify keeping it open. Strzok clearly found out the case was being closed and requested, on the same day the closing memo was placed in the file, that it be kept open, and he enlisted Page's help to keep it open. This allowed Strzok to continue to do whatever he wanted, with regard to Flynn, without having to provide justification to reopen the intelligence case or open a new criminal case. 2) The interview of Flynn on 24 Jan 2017 was clearly designed to trap him in a lie in order to create a chargeable offense. - The basis of the interview was to question Flynn about conversations he had with the Russion Ambassador. The FBI had the transcripts from those interviews and knew there was nothing in them to charge Flynn with any criminal offense - or that is the route they would have taken. - In Strzok's hand written notes preparing for the interview, he wrote, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" There had already been in-house discussions and discussions with DOJ in which they determined there was no prosecutable case for a Logan Act violation. - If the FBI truly believed Flynn had done anything wrong in those conversations they would have confronted Flynn with irrefutable evidence in the transcripts. Again, Strzok admits as much in his preparation notes, "We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing." However, there was no evidence of wrongdoing. - The only thing they could do is exactly what Strzok set out to do: Trap Flynn in a lie. - To do so, the FBI ignored direction from the DOJ and his own in-house legal counsel in following standard protocol and arranging an interview through White House channels. This was because they wanted Flynn to be unprepared for the interview. - There is a requirement for Agents to inform subjects that it is a criminal offense to provide a false statement during the interview. Strzok requested and got clarification from Page that he didn't have to notify Flynn until after he got Flynn to lie. In this same email, Strzok admitted to Page that he had actually never charged anyone with making a false statement to him while with the FBI (because it is rare). - Flynn had literally engaged in hundreds of conversations with people and was being asked to recall details of several short conversations from a month earlier, without being given any time to think about those conversations prior to the interview and without reviewing the transcripts - Even so, Strzok informed Comey, on the day of the interview, that neither Strzok or Pientka (the other Agent in the interview) believed Flynn had lied. Pientka also drafted a summary of the interview on an FD-302 on 24 Jan 2017. We do not know if there is a copy of this draft; however, we do know that Strzok and Page made major edits to the FD-302 almost 3 weeks later and, in this version, indicated Flynn had lied. - Strzok was not the Case Agent on Crossfire Razor and there are texts indicating Strzok was not initially going to be involved in the interview. Yet somehow, this guy with literally hundreds upon hundreds of texts between him and Page demonstrating his hatred of Trump and anything related to Trump managed to keep the case open, insert himself into the case and into this interview, and write the final FD-302 version with Flynn's "lies."

While it should be anatomically impossible, my money is on his head being that far up his ass...

Again, stop being so emotional. It has nothing to do with conflating anything. It is a straightforward question about a singular topic: Where did you stand on Kavanaugh. 1) Did you find Ford's allegations credible? 2) If so, why? It really should be easy to answer.

Oh stop being so emotional. Why don't you just tell us where you stood on Kavanaugh. 1) Did you find Ford's allegations credible? 2) If so, why? Simple enough

Yeah, so Pintka did write the original draft on the day of the interview; however, I doubt it was uploaded into Sentinel at that time. Strzok would have been the one to brief Comey and also would have gotten the draft FD-302 from Pientka. You are right, there wouldn't have been any pressure for the FD-302 to be completed within the 5 day limit. There are texts between Strzok and Page on 10 Feb 2019 in which they discuss the FD-302. Strzok sent it to her for her review and edits and she chastises him for the quality of the writing. Strzok responds, "Lisa, you didnt see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying to not to completely re-write the thing so as to save (redacted - probably Pientka's name) voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon. I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing and your edits. I incorporated them. Thank you Now, Strzok shouldn't have been making major edits to this document almost 3 weeks later, and Page, who was not even in the interview, should not have been making any edits at all. Page was a counsel and her role was to answer legal questions, provide legal advice on Bureau related matters, etc. Strzok was not an attorney. What all of this says to me is that Strzok did, in fact, almost completely rewrite Pientka's draft and needed Page's assistance to make sure that what he put into the FD-302 met the legal requirements needed to charge Flynn with providing false statements. Pientka did drop off the radar after his transfer and It will be interesting to see if he ever was interviewed.

Overall, we are on the same side on this. However, I'm sorry, but what the FBI did to Flynn is no "little thing" and didn't involve "small bad actors." So, we can just agree to disagree on this issue

I am not sure what you are arguing here. None of these things we are discussing are insignificant and they all contribute to eventually determining who had culpability and to what degree. Why would you eliminate one avenue of investigation when it could lead you to where you ultimately want to get?

They are related in terms of the conversations Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador; however, they are different in terms of what was done by each. They both need to be pursued.

I won't disagree with issues regarding the Obama Administration. However, that is a separate issue from what the FBI did to Flynn. They are both important.

Setting aside the guilty plea and his reasons for doing so (which would be a lengthy discussion), I have a question. When the Agents interviewed Flynn, it was primarily about conversations Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador. The Agents possessed the actual transcripts of those conversations and, I am sure, were familiar with every detail going into that interview, as the transcripts were the basis for their questions. Now, when they finished that interview, they told Comey, according to Comey's testimony before congress, that they did not believe Flynn had lied to them. This is not an instance of asking a question, getting an answer, and later finding evidence to show that the answer was a lie. They were asking him about statements he made in transcripts they had in their hands at the time. They would know for certain, during the interview, if he was telling the truth or lying about what he said in those transcripts. On the same day of the interview, when everything Flynn said was still fresh in their minds, the Agents did a draft FD-302 and told the Director of the FBI that Flynn did not lie to them. Over three weeks later, Strzok , submits a final version of the FD-302 that stated Flynn did lie during the interview. Did Strzok lie the day of the interview when he said there was no indication that Flynn had lied to them? Or, did he lie in the final version of the FD-302? Because, they can't both be true.

That seemed to be the stance of you and your crowd with Kavanaugh, based on even less....

This was a deliberate fabrication of an offense, based on an investigation (Crossfire Razor) that had no basis for being open, and that was, in turn, predicated upon an investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) that was based, primarily, on known fabricated information presented to a FISA Court. All from a corrupt management structure of the most powerful investigative agency in the world. Everyone should familiarize themselves with the details of this entire travesty - and it should terrify them.