DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, QMany said:

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan: “Were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?”

Flynn: "I was aware."

Sullivan: "You are guilty of this offense?"

Flynn: "Yes, your honor."

 

Sullivan: “Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by FBI?”

Flynn: "No, your honor. I was aware that lying to FBI was a crime."

Judge: "Do you believe that you were entrapped by FBI?"

Flynn: "No."

 

thanks Q...was that posted in here previously? If so, I missed it

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

thanks Q...was that posted in here previously? If so, I missed it

 

It may have been easier to find if there were more than 15 posts per page...

[Danny Bateman]

So, a lot of people of talked with think it's pretty much a given that Barr/Republicans will drop some investigation bomb on Biden a couple weeks before the election to try to replicate the success of the Comey letter in driving voters over to Trump.

 

When we get to that point, and very somber and serious Republicans fronted by Barr announce a very serious investigation into their chief political opponent on very serious charges, remember this. And remember investigating opponents is what happens in banana republics.

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

So, a lot of people of talked with think it's pretty much a given that Barr/Republicans will drop some investigation bomb on Biden a couple weeks before the election to try to replicate the success of the Comey letter in driving voters over to Trump.

 

When we get to that point, and very somber and serious Republicans fronted by Barr announce a very serious investigation into their chief political opponent on very serious charges, remember this. And remember investigating opponents is what happens in banana republics.

 

Remember this when the next Reade newsy bit trickles out.

 

Reade isn't some rando person who just happened to decide to come out with this allegation after Biden became the nominee. If she was, her story wouldn't be being doled out piecemeal over several weeks to keep these allegations in the news like this, with more and more stuff coming out every few days.

 

This is all part of the smear campaign.

[QMany]

17 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

You can lie to an FBI agent all you want, and not face charges, unless/specifically they are asking about Federal Govt operations...

Materiality

 

Judge Sullivan already ruled Flynn's lies (incl. denying conversation with Russian Ambassador about sanctions for Russian election interference during investigation of Russian election interference) were material. And Flynn would have had to admit that to the Court to procure his guilty plea; Sullivan can't just rubber stamp it (as you can see from the questioning above). 

[ZRod]

I don't want to beat a dead horse but I think there is a misinterpretation of the code. It's illegal to lie to a federal agent, end of story. Specifically in this case I bolded the really important part. Flynn lied. He admitted he lied. Ignorance is not a defense for the common man.

 

https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter47&edition=prelim

Quote

   Current 2018 Main Ed. (1/14/2019) 2012 Ed. and Supplement V (1/12/2018) 2012 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/6/2017) 2012 Ed. and Supplement III (1/3/2016) 2012 Ed. and Supplement II (1/5/2015) 2012 Ed. and Supplement I (1/16/2014) 2012 Main Ed. (1/15/2013) 2006 Ed. and Supplement V (1/3/2012) 2006 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/7/2011) 2006 Ed. and Supplement III (2/1/2010) 2006 Ed. and Supplement II (1/5/2009) 2006 Ed. and Supplement I (1/8/2008) 2006 Main Ed. (1/3/2007) 2000 Ed. and Supplement V (1/2/2006) 2000 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/3/2005) 2000 Ed. and Supplement III (1/19/2004) 2000 Ed. and Supplement II (1/6/2003) 2000 Ed. and Supplement I (1/22/2002) 2000 Main Ed. (1/2/2001) 1994 Ed. and Supplement V (1/23/2000) 1994 Ed. and Supplement IV (1/5/1999) 1994 Ed. and Supplement III (1/26/1998) 1994 Ed. and Supplement II (1/6/1997) 1994 Ed. and Supplement I (1/16/1996) 1994 Main Ed. (1/4/1995)     

 

 

<< Previous   TITLE 18 / PART I / CHAPTER 47 / § 1001   Next >>

[Print]    [Print selection]

[Close]Help

18 USC 1001: Statements or entries generallyText contains those laws in effect on May 7, 2020

From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMESCHAPTER 47-FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Jump To:Source CreditAmendmentsChange of NameShort Title§1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

 

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

 

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

 

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Sometimes pragmatism must come before principle.  In the case of this election, we must be pragmatic and vote the horror we see in the WH out of office at all costs. Being 'principled' at a time like this is a death nail to freedom and democracy as we know it.  I cannot imagine 4 more years of trumpism - both in the WH and in Congress.  The inability/inflexibility to being pragmatic in times like this is a betrayal of one's long term 'principled' goals.  One cannot push forward on any progressive ideas at all if trump is re-elected.   Do I think Biden is a great candidate now - no.  But if that is all the Dems put forward, he is the 'life boat' we will have to use to get away from the stinking, sinking ship of a Trump WH. 

Pragmatism also means seeing the world the way it is and not the way you wish it were. If you want to be pragmatic to get your candidate elected, then you should do what brings the most voters to your candidate. Not all the voters are going to be pragmatic and will instead vote based on other concerns. Your candidate is going to need to do something to get those votes.

 

You can wish those other voters were more pragmatic like you, but ironically that's not the pragmatic thing to do.

 

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Let me add this: If the allegations can be proven true, then the Dems should drop Biden in a heartbeat.  At this point I'm not sure how anything will be proven- he said, she said is where we are at.  Lie detector test - I doubt that will occur. Biden taking one won't happen.   

 

For justice sake, I hope the truth can be settled - one way or another.  Some questions

Will the Biden crowd accept the truth if it reveals Biden's innocence? 

Of course I'd accept the truth. The question is really about what evidence is convincing. For example, we see a number of posters in this thread who don't find contemporaneous court records of Reade's statements convincing.

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Will the Dems select someone else if the truth leads to a different conclusion? 

I very much doubt the Dems will select someone else. And even if they did, I think that candidate would lose no matter what. Bernie is logically the next nominee based on votes and delegates but there's swaths that have shown they won't vote for him. A different candidate would enrage the Bernie supporters as the fix being in, which again causes swaths not to vote for the other candidate. No win scenario.

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

 Are those who are pushing Tara's narrative more interested in justice for her than in defeating Biden? 

I'm more interested in the truth. Ignoring Biden's flaws and pretending he's done no wrong is the path to what the GOP has become.

 

And it causes the Dems to repeat their mistakes because they gloss over them. Watching Biden become the nominee is like watching 2004 all over again when they picked the "most electable" candidate to beat an even more unpopular incumbent than Trump - and of course lost because the "most electable" candidate didn't actually stand for anything except "the other guy is bad".

[RedDenver]

 

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm more interested in the truth. Ignoring Biden's flaws and pretending he's done no wrong is the path to what the GOP has become.

Case in point:

 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

Remember this bare naked corruption and the lengths they'll publicly go to in order to retain power when you're analyzing the truthiness of the Tara Reade saga.

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

Remember this when the next Reade newsy bit trickles out.

 

Reade isn't some rando person who just happened to decide to come out with this allegation after Biden became the nominee. If she was, her story wouldn't be being doled out piecemeal over several weeks to keep these allegations in the news like this, with more and more stuff coming out every few days.

 

This is all part of the smear campaign.

 

 

This is the pro-Biden version of the "deep state" and "fake news" conspiracies against their candidate. It must be the other team conspiring against my team's candidate because it would hurt my team's candidate if the allegation might be true.

[teachercd]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

Case in point:

 

 

 

This is the pro-Biden version of the "deep state" and "fake news" conspiracies against their candidate. It must be the other team conspiring against my team's candidate because it would hurt my team's candidate if the allegation might be true.

Yep!

 

It is being a college football fan!

 

"Mo Washington deserves his chance to tell his side of the story"

or

"Mo Washington is a creepy pedo and needs to be in prison" 

[Danny Bateman]

18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Of course I'd accept the truth. The question is really about what evidence is convincing. For example, we see a number of posters in this thread who don't find contemporaneous court records of Reade's statements convincing.

 

Because you misstated what story the court records actually reinforced and would rather be right about Biden being an awful candidate than listen to an ounce of reason that cuts against the progressive glass castle you've built for yourself.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Because you misstated what story the court records actually reinforced and would rather be right about Biden being an awful candidate than listen to an ounce of reason that cuts against the progressive glass castle you've built for yourself.

Show me where Is misstated the story. Here's the tweet I posted:

 

Note the words "sexual harassment" in that tweet. And here's a copy of the court document:

 

Note the words "sexual harassment" in that document.

 

So who's misstating the story?

[teachercd]

To the Bidenists...if it turns out he did what she said he did...are you voting for him still?

 

I think the answer is yes.

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

To the Bidenists...if it turns out he did what she said he did...are you voting for him still?

 

I think the answer is yes.

I don't think you have to use the term "Bidenist".  I mean "warrenists, buttegiegists, harrisisstiss, sandersists, klobacharists will all still vote for Biden over Trump...

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I don't think you have to use the term "Bidenist".  I mean "warrenists, buttegiegists, harrisisstiss, sandersists, klobacharists will all still vote for Biden over Trump...

You are probably right.  

 

I only know one real Sandersists and he seems to hate Joe.

 

But you are probably right about the others.

[DevoHusker]

3 hours ago, QMany said:

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan: “Were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?”

Flynn: "I was aware."

Sullivan: "You are guilty of this offense?"

Flynn: "Yes, your honor."

 

Sullivan: “Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by FBI?”

Flynn: "No, your honor. I was aware that lying to FBI was a crime."

Judge: "Do you believe that you were entrapped by FBI?"

Flynn: "No."

 

some additional info:

https://apnews.com/

 

As part of that process, the Justice Department gave Flynn’s attorneys internal FBI correspondence, including one handwritten note from a senior FBI official that mapped out internal deliberations about the purpose of the Flynn interview: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”