No, it means in exchange for his testimony he'll receive a reduced sentence.
Why on earth would you think this means he won't testify?
Peter Strzok Fired.
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Why on earth would you think this means he won't testify?
Because they don't sentence until AFTER testimony is done. Once a plea deal is in place it can't be rescinded for any reason. Even if the plaintiff lies on the stand.No, it means in exchange for his testimony he'll receive a reduced sentence.
Why on earth would you think this means he won't testify?
Remember Karla Homolka?
If he is sentenced he won't be used as a witness. They can't guarantee what he will say.
Given that he's up for charges for lying to the FBI and 6 months jail time for it, do you think that he wouldn't answer honestly again when called to the stand?Because they don't sentence until AFTER testimony is done. Once a plea deal is in place it can't be rescinded for any reason. Even if the plaintiff lies on the stand.
Remember Karla Homolka?
If he is sentenced he won't be used as a witness. They can't guarantee what he will say.
I don't think you understand. He doesn't have to answer. He could take the fifth on the stand.Given that he's up for charges for lying to the FBI and 6 months jail time for it, do you think that he wouldn't answer honestly again when called to the stand?
They don't sentence until after. That's the rule. He is another dead end. Manafort is next. And if Gates gets Sentenced then that is closed down.
The judge has questioned about sentencing Flynn as well.
All these holding back have been imo a fake out to try to make people nervous.
The bluff isn't working.
You really should stop listening to Fox.I don't think you understand. He doesn't have to answer. He could take the fifth on the stand.
They don't sentence until after. That's the rule. He is another dead end. Manafort is next. And if Gates gets Sentenced then that is closed down.
The judge has questioned about sentencing Flynn as well.
All these holding back have been imo a fake out to try to make people nervous.
The bluff isn't working.
What do you think that Don McGahn had to say to Mueller over the 30 hours they spent talking?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...n-dean-weighs-in-on-new-york-times-story.html
You need to stop listening to MSNBC.You really should stop listening to Fox.
What do you think that Don McGahn had to say to Mueller over the 30 hours they spent talking?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...n-dean-weighs-in-on-new-york-times-story.html
No idea what he said. Judging from Trump's reaction I'd say not alot. You think they will catch him off guard?
Another false trail started by the media for a 24 hour talking point......
You need to read the reports.You need to stop listening to MSNBC.
No idea what he said. Judging from Trump's reaction I'd say not alot. You think they will catch him off guard?
Another false trail started by the media for a 24 hour talking point......
McGahn understood that Trump was preparing to throw him under the bus, so he freely submitted to Mueller's questioning.
30 hours of questions.
Blah blah blah. Another dead end. Another nothing.You need to read the reports.
McGahn understood that Trump was preparing to throw him under the bus, so he freely submitted to Mueller's questioning.
30 hours of questions.
You sound like 'truth isn't truth' Guiliani now.Blah blah blah. Another dead end. Another nothing.
Hilarious.
All you got these days are blanket denials, so lame.
The next 11 weeks should be fun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ncy-is-about-to-begin/?utm_term=.b3a7340d2cd7
If all the assertions I have put forward are factually correct (which in fairness, you are unsure of), the principles in relation to chain of custody certainly would apply, in the circumstances and for the reasons I have pointed out. I'm not "trying to understand". I do understand. I was trying to help you see how these principles may be applicable. You have not explained (never mind not gone back to explain) your view as to how they could have no application to the fact pattern I've asserted. This was an instance where I was seeking to clarify (for others) how this issue may apply, because your initial response to Butler might give someone who doesn't understand these evidentiary principles an inaccurate impression.If the point of your previous post was to construct a series of "facts" which would somehow buttress some argument about chain of custody etc. you have failed and you have missed the point of what the principal is intended to achieve. Butler is clueless. At least you are trying to understand. Again I have no idea whether any of the previous statements of "fact" you have made are correct or not. Even if they are none of them individually or collectively maker your assertion correct as a matter of law. I cannot keep going back and explaining why you are misconstruing the application of the principal but you are.
In any event you are assuming that the FBI and other law enforcement people who have examined this issue ad infinitum are amateurs. They are highly skilled professionals who have access to technology and tools that neither you or I are aware. The bedrock of your argument is that you are able to determine that the investigation was flawed but that the FBI and DOJ were not. When asked by Representative Jordan about why there was no special counsel to investigate HRS, AG Sessions said because there was nothing there. I am paraphrasing of course.
This entire issue has been created by Nunes, Jordan and their gang to provide cover for Trump. Nothing more
I don't assume FBI agents are amateurs. However, FBI agents follow the direction of their leadership, and those leaders are capable of acting based on political imperatives. Their leadership decided to rely on reports of a DNC contractor and decided not to seek to verify the underpinnings of those reports against physical servers which could have been seized. I cannot say whether Crowdstrike's analysis was correct or flawed. I can say that the FBI's complete reliance on their report is flawed, as a matter of investigative protocol. But to Butlers point, the problem at this juncture is that it may be impossible to properly verify the Crowdstrike report (or perhaps was impossible at even a much earlier time), given the access that others had to the relevant servers.
This entire issue was created by Comey (or Strzok, or whoever decided not to seize the servers, or at least order than they be preserved (although that didn't work so well with the Clinton server)). It might have been a nothingburger had the FBI only followed its own ordinary investigative protocols.
omg i just figured that using the incognito window on chrome goes around the paywall!
Works on most papers, sadly not on the globe or star.omg i just figured that using the incognito window on chrome goes around the paywall!
Blanket denials? There you go assuming guilt and stating I have to somehow disprove suppositions.You sound like 'truth isn't truth' Guiliani now.
Hilarious.
All you got these days are blanket denials, so lame.
The next 11 weeks should be fun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ncy-is-about-to-begin/?utm_term=.b3a7340d2cd7
I dont. It's up to you to supply proof and not opinion pieces. All you have supplied are opinion pieces. Nothing else. That's not proof.
So my job is easy.
You are trying to mold your facts into some scenario in which there is some issue regarding chain of custody. You have not and again you have misunderstood its application. Again even iof all of the facts in your earlier email are correct and I do not accept that they are I simply have no idea, they would not change the simple fact which as a matter of law the principal doe snot apply. And although i appreciate your attempt to help me see how these principals may be applicable it is not helpful if you misconstrue or do not understand their application as clearly you have.If all the assertions I have put forward are factually correct (which in fairness, you are unsure of), the principles in relation to chain of custody certainly would apply, in the circumstances and for the reasons I have pointed out. I'm not "trying to understand". I do understand. I was trying to help you see how these principles may be applicable. You have not explained (never mind not gone back to explain) your view as to how they could have no application to the fact pattern I've asserted. This was an instance where I was seeking to clarify (for others) how this issue may apply, because your initial response to Butler might give someone who doesn't understand these evidentiary principles an inaccurate impression.
I don't assume FBI agents are amateurs. However, FBI agents follow the direction of their leadership, and those leaders are capable of acting based on political imperatives. Their leadership decided to rely on reports of a DNC contractor and decided not to seek to verify the underpinnings of those reports against physical servers which could have been seized. I cannot say whether Crowdstrike's analysis was correct or flawed. I can say that the FBI's complete reliance on their report is flawed, as a matter of investigative protocol. But to Butlers point, the problem at this juncture is that it may be impossible to properly verify the Crowdstrike report (or perhaps was impossible at even a much earlier time), given the access that others had to the relevant servers.
This entire issue was created by Comey (or Strzok, or whoever decided not to seize the servers, or at least order than they be preserved (although that didn't work so well with the Clinton server)). It might have been a nothingburger had the FBI only followed its own ordinary investigative protocols.
I do not accept and in fact I absolutely reject your assertion that the FBI investigation was flawed. Might it have been better? Every investigation can be better and saying that it was not perfect does not mean that it was flawed or invalid in its conclusions. Your assertions and those of Butler are simply base upon a conspiracy theory which i reject. Yours is a conspiracy theory invented by Hannity, Nunes, Jordan etc for the purpose of providing cover to Trump and has been thoroughly debunked.
You have made an attempt at thoughtful debate which i appreciate. once it devolves into conspiracy I am gone.
I don't know if it makes sense to speak to trump defenders anymore. All they have left is a conspiracy. How are you gonna defend a president who in the middle of manafort jury deliberations says that manafort is a good man? How can you defend a guy who is lashing out at intelligence officers who have been serving their country all their life while he has been selling condos to russians and building with russians in toronto and elsewhere?Yours is a conspiracy theory invented by Hannity, Nunes, Jordan etc for the purpose of providing cover to Trump and has been thoroughly debunked.
You have made an attempt at thoughtful debate which i appreciate. once it devolves into conspiracy I am gone.
You either have a sense of decency and/or half a brain to recognize shit for what it is or you don't.
You have to be kidding to suggest that talking about the application of an evidentiary principles, and the standard for admitting evidence in criminal proceedings is conspiracy theory. You don't agree with the facts being asserted - fine (although I note that in some cases you don't so much dispute them, as say you can't confirm them). However, the discussion is by it's very nature speculative, because no one can know if such a reprised investigation will ever take place, and what the state of the evidence would be by that point.You are trying to mold your facts into some scenario in which there is some issue regarding chain of custody. You have not and again you have misunderstood its application. Again even iof all of the facts in your earlier email are correct and I do not accept that they are I simply have no idea, they would not change the simple fact which as a matter of law the principal doe snot apply. And although i appreciate your attempt to help me see how these principals may be applicable it is not helpful if you misconstrue or do not understand their application as clearly you have.
I do not accept and in fact I absolutely reject your assertion that the FBI investigation was flawed. Might it have been better? Every investigation can be better and saying that it was not perfect does not mean that it was flawed or invalid in its conclusions. Your assertions and those of Butler are simply base upon a conspiracy theory which i reject. Yours is a conspiracy theory invented by Hannity, Nunes, Jordan etc for the purpose of providing cover to Trump and has been thoroughly debunked.
You have made an attempt at thoughtful debate which i appreciate. once it devolves into conspiracy I am gone.
Lastly, if you really think there's some misapplication of the concept of chain of custody (both physical custody and access) to this discussion, by all means, articulate it. But, simple stating "you don't understand" is neither an argument nor a clarification of your view.
Let's see if you feel the same way about proper FBI investigative protocol if Mueller ever does lay any indictments against Trump and/or his organization, then demands the surrender of computer servers, and Trump says instead - "Here's a report my favourite IT contractor prepared instead. I promise it's totally reliable! Bigly!".
McGahn's 30 hour discussion with Mueller is not an opinion piece.All you have supplied are opinion pieces. Nothing else. That's not proof.
.
Guilliani stating that the Don Jr meeting with a representative of the Russian government was in facd to dig up dirt on Clinton is not an opinion.
Cohen about to be charged for fraud is not opinion.
You have no evidence to back up your claims, only your own personal opinion.
Big difference.Let's see if you feel the same way about proper FBI investigative protocol if Mueller ever does lay any indictments against Trump and/or his organization, then demands the surrender of computer servers, and Trump says instead - "Here's a report my favourite IT contractor prepared instead. I promise it's totally reliable! Bigly!".
The dems were hacked by Putin and supported by Trump.
They are the victims.
Should Trump be indicted he'll likely be treated as his lawyer Cohen was, and evidence will be removed.
'Cuz Trump isn't a victim, he's a perp or target.
What was said? For all you know it was thirty hours of "I don't know, I didn't see/hear, that's priveliged (not as client he is WH council), or maybe like Lynch and Clinton they discussed Grand kids.McGahn's 30 hour discussion with Mueller is not an opinion piece.
Guilliani stating that the Don Jr meeting with a representative of the Russian government was in facd to dig up dirt on Clinton is not an opinion.
Cohen about to be charged for fraud is not opinion.
You have no evidence to back up your claims, only your own personal opinion.
You have no evidence anything came from the meeting., Other than conjecture due to its length and the musing of one writer.
So what if Cohen is charged? His charges relate to personal matters and not the campaign.
Again. I don't need to prove anything. That's the way it works silly.
