US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2562

On August 15 2020 05:33 Nevuk wrote:
There is an irregularity, in that people are almost never charged for what Flynn was (lying to the fbi). I believe the reason it's a crime is the same reason RICO is - to help prosecute the mob (and other organized groups) who cover up their crimes too well to be found guilty at trial (reading up on it, it's actually a civil war era relic that has gotten strengthened over the years - until 1900 it required demonstrating financial harm as a result of the lie). I'm not sure I'd call it a perjury trap, though. Selective prosecution, definitely (it's pretty much only ever used against those difficult to prosecute traditionally... like Martha Stewart or Petraeus). It's not a right/left bias, though.

I've found a washingtonexaminer (a far right newpaper, iirc) article on the topic, but I do recall many liberal legal commentators saying that they really don't like USC 1001 either.

Some of the things Flynn was alleged to have done WERE downright criminal (discussing the kidnapping of that cleric for Turkey) and he should never have been made a prominent national defense chief. I don't know if not charging him for that was part of his plea deal or not, but if it were true, he should absolutely have been charged with that.

A lot of organizations tend to return to their roots given enough time, as they were designed for that purpose. The FBI was initially used and conceived of as a way for Hoover to maintain political power as a non-elected official. It should come as no surprise, if they didn't fully let go of that, even after they got kneecapped after Hoover died.

I have no idea how their image got rehabilitated after that period, considering every time they've wound up in the news since it's been for some absurd malpractice.

On August 15 2020 05:51 Danglars wrote:

I don’t really see much here from you, Nevuk. I never asked if you like him. The interview was set up as a friendly meeting trying to ascertain facts and allegations. This is why he didn’t feel the need to have a lawyer present; he was supposed to help oversee this kind of stuff, not be it’s target. The FBI agents tasked with this openly questioned whether their goal was to get him to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired, or if it was something about the Logan act. It’s about as slam dunk a case of trying to get someone to commit a crime as it comes. I see no reasoning of yours to know why you wouldn’t call it a perjury trap, other than you don’t like the guy and it’s sometimes used in other circumstances for other things. I don’t really think any of them stands up as a real argument. The FBI agents sure weren’t confused, because it was as plain as day to them. The only thing in doubt is abuse of power corruption or political bias corruption. Entrapment is the precise term for trying to get someone to commit a crime to prosecute, look it up. “Perjury” in this case is making false statements to federal investigators, and its classic use is making false statements in a court of law. It describes what you’re stating.

On August 15 2020 06:03 Nevuk wrote:

I'm ... mostly on your side, on this, actually. I only object to the terminology.

It's just not literally perjury (as that is a false statement in court or under oath). Pedantic, yes, but I feel like it's important to be exact about language in legal matters.

The fact is that it's actually more nefarious of a tactic than the term perjury trap implies, as that would require you to knowingly be under oath (while USC 1001 applies to any statement given to a federal officer investigating a crime). It's ripe for abuse and seems to be a tactic the FBI have turned towards to get easy convictions instead of prosecuting whatever the underlying crime they investigated actually was (could they have charged Flynn with the logan act? Sure. Could they have gotten a conviction? We'll never know).

The only mitigating factor to me is that Flynn did say under oath that he was aware it was a crime when he did it... but it still shouldn't be a crime.

That his charges have been dropped while the FBI isn't apologizing to Martha Stewart is definitely politically motivated, however.

On August 15 2020 06:22 Wombat_NI wrote:

Darn legal things. Trying to wrap my head around this, the beers may not have been conducive to this quest.

Flynn wasn’t charged with anything initially, ergo we skip the auld Miranda warnings and all that stuff.



With the caveat that this thread is about all the amount of gazing into the outside world of politics. I could read more but a lot of it is trash or misleading, or if true exceptionally aggravating as reality is, well aggravating. So excuse my ignorance is that vaguely what’s being alleged/discussed here?

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

But under the auspices of something approaching mere questioning on a wider investigation in which he wasn’t a suspect he still fell afoul of the crime of lying to a federal officer, which they may have tried to create conditions for so as to have leverage against Flynn to give them dirt as per their investigation.

On August 15 2020 02:18 farvacola wrote:

Edit: I should add that there's good reason to be skeptical of the claim that the "well regulated militia" component of the 2nd Amendment refers to armament with reference to overthrowing the federal government, some historians believe it had far more to do with the Founding Fathers' fear of maintaining a standing army at all.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. . . .

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

On August 15 2020 08:39 Doodsmack wrote:


An interesting theory, but I personally find it hard to believe that revolution was not contemplated by the 2nd Amendment. E.g. In the Federalist 28 Hamilton said:



It's a Federalist paper that is largely about the militia (and Federalist 29 is entirely about the militia). Interesting stuff I think. Power was always reserved to the people, which ultimately means that the "power of the sword" is in their hands. The whole point of that is to enable a counterbalance to the federal government.

On August 15 2020 06:28 Nevuk wrote:

He lied to the FBI about something that *may* be a crime within the confines of a 1799 bill called the Logan Act. (Specifically whether he had conversations discussing foreign affairs with an ambassador before taking office. I believe this was when he said that sanctions may be eased on Russia to the Russian ambassador after Obama left office).

The logan act has NEVER led to a conviction, and has only ever led to an indictment twice, in 220+ years.

Is Flynn guilty of it? Possibly, but so are *tons* of past officials, across the centuries, if it is being read broadly enough to apply.

It's a short law so you can decide for yourself:

RE:

The FBI and US police in general are notorious for using tactics like this when questioning suspects, which is part of why we've had so many false convictions be made throughout the years. So it's entirely believable that they did that (it's honestly even expected - if questioned by US police, NEVER assume they are on your side. They aren't).

On August 15 2020 08:39 Doodsmack wrote:


An interesting theory, but I personally find it hard to believe that revolution was not contemplated by the 2nd Amendment. E.g. In the Federalist 28 Hamilton said:



It's a Federalist paper that is largely about the militia (and Federalist 29 is entirely about the militia). Interesting stuff I think. Power was always reserved to the people, which ultimately means that the "power of the sword" is in their hands. The whole point of that is to enable a counterbalance to the federal government.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants.

That assertion is false. Ms. Harris is eligible to serve.

Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Thursday, nevertheless pushed forward with the attack, reminiscent of the lie he perpetrated for years that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

“I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said of Ms. Harris.

“I have no idea if that’s right,” he added. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.”

On August 15 2020 20:15 Wombat_NI wrote:
Ah Trump’s classic ‘I’m not saying or suggestion this but I’ve heard x from other people’ combo

On August 15 2020 23:20 Danglars wrote:

He was directly asked about the specific claim by a reporter, who told him who had been making the claim and asked about the argument.

Still bad, because apparently I have to add that these days.

On August 15 2020 06:28 Nevuk wrote:

He lied to the FBI about something that *may* be a crime within the confines of a 1799 bill called the Logan Act. (Specifically whether he had conversations discussing foreign affairs with an ambassador before taking office. I believe this was when he said that sanctions may be eased on Russia to the Russian ambassador after Obama left office).

The logan act has NEVER led to a conviction, and has only ever led to an indictment twice, in 220+ years.

Is Flynn guilty of it? Possibly, but so are *tons* of past officials, across the centuries, if it is being read broadly enough to apply.

It's a short law so you can decide for yourself:

RE:

The FBI and US police in general are notorious for using tactics like this when questioning suspects, which is part of why we've had so many false convictions be made throughout the years. So it's entirely believable that they did that (it's honestly even expected - if questioned by US police, NEVER assume they are on your side. They aren't).

On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote:
Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.