Rules To Live By, Lessons To Absorb

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Former National Security Advisor pleads guilty to lying to FBI.

  1. Section 1001 is used when prosecutors can’t prove anything but they found an inconsistency in your statements. It was used against Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, both convicted of lying to investigators even though there was no underlying crime to investigate.
  2. Nobody should ever talk to the FBI about anything, ever.
  3. We’ll see if this leads to Trump or his family.  At this point, doesn’t sound like much.  Sounds like more small fry (remember the guy who pled last month?  Never heard of him again).
  4. Did you notice that the news articles do not contain direct quotes of his purported lies?  I suspect the “lying” is based on a comparison of the Obama Administration’s eavesdropping tapes with the FBI agents’ written notes of their interviews.  Who knows what they wrote and whether it’s accurate? This is why Hillary couldn’t be convicted – they made a point of not asking her on the record and didn’t take notes.
  5. Prison is not the punishment, the process is the punishment.  You must hire an attorney to defend you every day for a year at your own expense.  If you’ve ever been involved in any sort of litigation, you know how much it weighs on your mind and takes a physical toll, in addition to the financial burden.  If you don’t fall on the sword, they expand the scope of the threat to go after your family, friends, colleagues. Eventually, they get you to plead to something, anything, just to stop the torture.
  6. There still is no collusion.  Fire Mueller and his whole team.

Joe Doakes

In many ways, Feferal law enforcement is a racket too dirty for the Mob to touch.

42 thoughts on “Rules To Live By, Lessons To Absorb

  1. A three star General turns soldier of fortune for Turkey and Russia while acting as Trump’s top national security adviser. He gets a minimum sentence. That’s a clue to the importance of what he’s telling Mueller. I love how Trump’s lawyer is referring to Flynn as a “former Obama Administration official”. Just priceless.

    “After years of Comey, with the phoney and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters — worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness…”

    @realDonaldTrump is beginning to sound like a caricature of Donald Trump.

    Just priceless.

  2. “He gets a minimum sentence. That’s a clue to the importance of what he’s telling Mueller.”

    From what I hear, that is not the right way to understand this situation.

  3. Flynn was Trump’s National Security Adviser for 23 days, the shortest tenure of any NSA. Why did Trump fire Flynn? Because Flynn lied to Pence.
    There is no “there” there. After ten months of investigation, Emery is still unable to name the crime that is being investigated.

  4. Nobody should ever talk to the FBI about anything, ever.

    This. Especially if you are innocent.

    If you must talk to them, have a lawyer present and couch everything in the usual language of, “As best I can recall…”, “As far as I can remember…”, etc. Stating anything firmly will get you in trouble. Just ask Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart.

  5. I’d like to know more about this extra-marital affair between anti-Trump FBI big shots (& Mueller investigators) Strzok & Page. What the Hell? And their supervisor, FBI #3 MCCabe — whose politician wife received heavy donations from the Clintons.
    Maybe a “journalist” could look into this. Looks like corruption to me.

  6. MP, libturds live by the little people credo – corruption for thee but not for me. It’s good to be the King!

  7. “libturds live by the little people credo – corruption for thee but not for me. It’s good to be the King!”

    I.e. Lois Lerner

  8. Comey’s recent pro-FBI tweets make him look like an idiot. There seems to be a real FBI, and the Comey FBI, and the two have little in common.
    Holder is defending the integrity of the FBI. Holder, who okayed the pardon of tax fugitive Marc Rich (heavy Clinton donor) and the FALN terrorists (to get Hillary the Puerto Rican vote in NY).

  9. Read the tweets of Comey, Holder, and Yates regarding the non-partisan and incorruptible nature of the FBI & recall that Mark Felt, number 2 at FBI, brought down Nixon. Because he was peeved that Nixon skipped over him for promotion to the #1 spot (demonstrating that Nixon was good judge of character in at least one case).

  10. Flynn is saying clearly that he was not a rogue actor but was operating at the behest of the presidential transition team. He states that a “very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team,” a “senior official of the Presidential Transition Team” and “senior members of the Presidential Transition Team” were involved in directing his actions.

  11. Suppose he was an operative and not a “rogue actor”, Emery. IF that was the case, then there might be a violation of the Logan Act. You know the Logan Act, passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Act package? The one that’s never, ever been successfully used and is very, very likely not to survive Constitutional muster? It’d be hard to get past First Amendment protections in freedom of expression and association to get a conviction. And suppose you could convict Flynn, what would that do to Jimmy Carter and Obama these days? If you can get Flynn as a private citizen as part of the incoming presidential administration, Carter and Obama are even more vulnerable.

  12. That were perfectly legal. Oh wait, you still must have not received the memo about fake news from ABC. But hey, keep trolling cupcake. And make sure to use both sock puppets this time, it must be cold up there by now.

  13. So Flynn, confessed liar, is telling the truth, now?
    This is pitiful. The “investigation” is waste of resources. I’d say it was at least an economic stimulus, but the DC area is already bloated with taxpayer $.

  14. I’d like to know more about this extra-marital affair between anti-Trump FBI big shots (& Mueller investigators) Strzok & Page. What the Hell?

    Don’t particularly care, myself. Strzok, Page, and Hodgman have to work that out between themselves. In fact, I have sympathies for Hodgman who got pulled into this through no action of her own and now has to live with the public humiliation of having the affair publicized.

    What was stupid was talking politics inside the FBI, which will kill Mueller’s credibility when a case may come up to a jury. This is a political investigation, so appearing biased will make Mueller’s life harder, which is why the FBI tried so hard to keep the reason Strzok was demoted secret.

    More telling to me is actually that Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, a “top lawyer” at the SEC publicly affiliates with “Democrats for a Blue America” and “Thank You Obama”, and follows “We Voted for Hillary” on Facebook. In what kind of bubble do you live where a supposedly non-partisan, high level bureaucrat feels free to publicly take very partisan positions? Yes, we have a Civil Service that keeps Trump from canning her, but that those rules are so strong as to make open, highly partisan expressions feel “safe” for our bureaucrats is troublesome. It breeds the questionable actions of those such as Lois Lerner, who can’t distinguish between legitimate concerns about tax exempt organizations and naked political discrimination. We are in desperate need of Civil Service reform, and not just to get rid of partisan influences, but to actually be able to fire incompetents.

  15. I want to see the anti-Trump, pro-Hillary messages exchanged between Strzok & Page. They might go beyond name calling into treason, e.g. conspiring to depose Trump and installing Hillary as prez.
    They should have no privacy rights here.

  16. All of this activity to mislead or conceal may in the end prove futile. It is now Flynn’s turn to talk. I suspect the president’s lawyers are preparing for the worst, by arguing that even if there was collusion, it would not be a crime. The Flynn plea may move the case much closer to the moment when the president and his legal team will be required to test that theory in the real world conditions of a grand-jury room and then a court.

  17. I suspect the president’s lawyers are preparing for the worst, by arguing that even if there was collusion, it would not be a crime.

    Definition of collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.

    So collusion is 95% of human interactions, 99% of diplomacy, and 99.99999999% of politics unless you strike the word especially and change the OR to an AND in that definition.

    I’m having a very hard time seeing what could possibly count as collusion here in the normal definition of an illegal and deceitful purpose, Emery. Care to stake out a position as to what “collusion” amounts to here?

    Reaching out to foreign powers as part of a presidential transition could be violation of the Logan Act (a very troublesome Act as I pointed out above), but that hardly amounts to collusion since the actions were post-election and could only represent the intended actions of the incoming Administration. As such, the First Amendment would protect those speaking to the Russians.

    It seems to me that you’d have to get pre-election statements and agreements, at which point Obama’s “have more flexibility” moment would certainly qualify as collusion, as would Ted Kennedy’s outreach to the Soviets. Did you support impeachment of Obama for his open-mic gaff? I don’t seem to recall that you objected to collusion or attempted collusion with Russia in that instance.

  18. C/mon nerd, give sock puppet a break. He no comprende. How does that saying go? Hope dies last? And when all you have is hope and change and nothing else, all you can do is pity the poor fool. You have a better chance of making a blind man see than make eTASS understand simple facts.

  19. The part I can’t figure out is why Trump doesn’t call Mueller into his office and say “Show me you’ve got something relevant to the crime you’re supposed to be investigating” and if he can’t do that, fire the lot of them.

    Remember how we got here: Hillary was projected to win. When she did not win, she insisted it was because the Russians hacked into our voting machines to change vote totals. When that was disproven, she claimed Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from her. That’s what Mueller is investigating – collusion BEFORE the election, to steal the election.

    Flynn did not work for Trump BEFORE the election, he did not meet with Russians on Trump’s behalf BEFORE the election, he could not have helped Trump collude with Russians to win the election. So why is Mueller investigating Flynn’s conduct AFTER the election?

  20. It strikes me above all that the FBI has, like the IRS, BATFE, DOJ, and a lot of other government agencies, been pretty much fully weaponized at the service of the left. There is a certain reality that a plurality of people at a lot of agencies are ready to ride the boat to the bottom as long as “their side wins.” Yikes.

  21. Obama knew about the “Russians meddling” in our election process for at least 3 months, yet said nothing. I say that he should be investigated, too.

  22. Is there a domino theory in Washington? When the first domino falls, might not a lot of other dominoes fall in quick succession?

    Who will be the last domino?

  23. Strzok was the agent who green-lighted the FBI’s acceptance of the Steele Dossier. Good lord. This is what a corrupt investigation looks like.

  24. More “whataboutism”, Woolly? Mueller took care of the incident by removing the agent in question. Apparently that fact has escaped your notice. If only the Trump administration took as much care as Muller did to avoid any appearances of conflicts-of-interest.

  25. This case stinks and it’s getting worse.

    An FBI agent declines to ask Hillary questions under oath and makes no notes of the conversation, then changes Comey’s memo to use a novel theory of the law which exonerates her. That same agent ambushes Flynn to question him – without his attorney – about the details of a conversation the agent already had transcripts of, because of Obama wiretaps. The agent wasn’t searching for information relevant to an investigation – he already had the information – so the only possible reason for the interview was to trap a Trump administration official.

    That agent allegedly took notes of what Flynn said during that conversation. Those notes are the basis for charging Flynn with lying to the FBI.

    That same agent was fired from Mueller’s team for anti-Trump messages sent to the FBI lawyer that he was having an extramarital affair with.

    The entire case against Flynn depends on the credibility of one witness – the FBI agent who shielded Hillary, hates Trump and trapped Flynn. It’s his word (about what Flynn said in the interview) against Flynn’s word.

    People who’ve known Flynn have been pulling their hair out asking “Why would Flynn lie?” I ask: “Did he lie? Or did the agent only claim Flynn lied?”

    Well, if he didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty? Because it’s his word against the FBI agent, he’s already paid a lawyer to defend him for a full year, the outcome at trial is never certain and Mueller threatened to go after Flynn’s family if he didn’t cooperate. Taking a plea was the only way to stop the torture.

    Pardon Flynn. Fire Mueller and his whole team. Fire the FBI agent and anybody who knew what he was up to. And start a new investigation: what did Mueller know, and when did he know it?

  26. Nope. “Whataboutism” is bringing in something unrelated. The classic is the cold war joke about the American journalist and his Soviet minder. The go to the Moscow subway & after a few minutes of waiting, the American comments that the train is late. The commie minder sputters for a moment and then says “What about your lynchings in the South?”
    See? Unrelated. Pointing out defects in the investigation is not “whataboutism.” It is not “whataboutism” to point out that the political enemies of Roy Moore wanted absolute proof of Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes, and when they got it, they gave Clinton a pass. It illustrates that the political enemies of Moore are unprincipled, and that their claim to care about sexual harassment and sexual abuse is false. They only care that the accused has an “R” after his name rather than a “D.” No one has claimed that Roy Moore is innocent because the entire Democrat establishment gave Clinton a pass two decades ago.
    You really have to stop reading HuffPo, or TPM, or Kos, or wharever it is you get your Lefty arguments from. They do not know what they are doing. They have long forgotten how to make a reasoned argument.

  27. If you have a problem with my 9:31, Emery, say so.
    Otherwise you are blowing smoke.
    Like Mueller, these days.

  28. “I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!” ~Trump tweeted.

    Does Trump think no one notices that he lies almost daily? He’s not really well positioned to start a “you’re the liar” contest with Comey.

  29. Does Trump think no one notices that he lies almost daily? He’s not really well positioned to start a “you’re the liar” contest with Comey.

    Says the Bold Faced Liar who recites fake news verbatim. Rich, very rich, sock puppet #1. Nobody is buying your BS here, so keep trolling cupcake, especially in light of JD’s takedown. You are pitiful in your trolling attempts and should strive to do better. Really. You are a losing it. Pitiful.

  30. Strzok: “We got Trump, boss!”
    Mueller: “Waddya mean?”
    Strzok:”Trump told me that he did not met the Russian ambassador in October of 2016. Well, it turns out he also did not meet Putin in October of 2016!”
    Mueller: “So he lied!”
    Strzok: “That’s what my interview notes, say.”
    Mueller: “Get your partner, Lisa Page, to draw up the charges. See if she can find a treason a treason angle in this.”
    Strzok: “You mean . . .”
    Mueller: “Exactly. A hangin’ crime.”
    Strzok: “Whoopee!”

  31. What’s even more hilarious are those that believe they know what evidence Mueller is sitting on. Or where in the investigation they are.

  32. Well, there are facts on the ground and indictments and such out there in public domain, most of which have been outlined by JD and others, that point to a nothingburger and a waste of tax payers’ money. But hey, if it ain’t fake news and alternate facts that is not good enough for you. We get it, cupcake. We get it. You poor delusional soulless troll.

  33. The rules are simple. If you lie to the FBI about things that are not a crime, you will go to jail. Just ask Flynn, Martha Stewart, and Scooter Libby. This is especially the case if you are a Republican or a billionaire. However, if you lie to the FBI about things that are a crime, as did Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Hilliary Clinton, and others, you will skate. This is especially the case if you are a Democrat.

    And if you think the FBI is abandoning the punishment of real crimes, you are of course a hater and a liar.

  34. The only way this could get more sordid and less believable, would be if the FBI agent who vetted the fake Russian dossier and passed it along to Comey to leak was the same guy who did all that other stuff.

    No way.

    It couldn’t be.

  35. C’mon JD, eTASS already pointed out that Strzok was fired! But of course he was fired not for what he did (for he would never had been hired in the first place), but because he got caught. This is another data point for your “what really goes on in libturd’s head” research.

  36. JD, a question. Can Flynn claim protection under “equal treatment” clause because Mills and Abedin skated for what arguably is a much more severe lying to the exact same person? How can you selectively charge or not charge people? Surely there is a defense there. Surely this should go all the way to Supremes so that vile hag sHrillary gets to spend the rest of her miserable existence in an ill-fitting orange jumpsuit behind bars.

  37. JPA, you’re referring to prosecutorial discretion, and as far as I can tell, the only remedy to prosecutorial indiscretion of the type you refer to is to petition for a new prosecutor.

  38. Are you saying preferential treatment for me but not for thee is codified in our laws? That 14th Amendment is null and void? That it was overturned when we were not looking?

  39. Well, when we try, what we get is along the lines of the Obama administration’s “disparate impact” things.

    In short, keeping the statistics on who gets tried and who does not actually feeds the political fires while getting people hurt and killed.

    Put in terms of the amendment, due process goes to….those who have been investigated and indicted, no? So the whole thing could be said to occur after prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, “full protection of law” also would refer to….those who have been investigated and indicted.

    So this is one of those legal “rough spots” where you need some discretion (you can’t prosecute everything), and trying to police what cases a prosecutor takes (or an investigator investigates) would be a full time job in itself.

    Doesn’t mean we don’t cry foul when Strzok or whoever obviously has his thumb on the scales of justice, but our remedy is not prosecution, but rather petition.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.