It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robert Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Charge Michael Flynn, NBC News Reports

page: 15
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

They also don't arraign people in those cases, they try to flip them and turn state's evidence. Manafort already plead not guilty.


Typically, yes. They can still reach a plea agreement at anytime. Or drop it entirely. In one sense, letting the hammer drop makes people start seriously rethinking their silence. At the same time, assuming that premise, it means they got nothing out of him and their investigation of him that they could use against Trump, or there'd be no need to put pressure on. I can't imagine Manafort is so crazy about Trump that he swallowed his tongue earlier just so he could get his face in the news, lose all his assets, and face serious prison time.

One problem with that approach is that unless there is other good supporting evidence beyond the new testimony, a defense lawyer is going to eat it up. "You were charged with serious crimes and faced serious punishment, 80 yes of incarceration and asset forfeiture of essentially your entire worth, were you not? But suddenly charges were dropped or the punishment was severely reduced. Why is that? Did the prosecutors ask you to tell them another story? Did they offer you a reduced sentence or dropped charge in exchange for incriminating evidence against Mr.X? When was the first time they offered you relief? Before you were charged? What did they want in return? You could not remember anything incdiminating at that time which might have helped you avoid a public trial? But when you were formally charged and facing serious charges you suddenly remembered that Mr.X asked you to contact Mr.R, is that right? Were you lying to investigators then or now?

There's still a bunch of indictments out there who haven't been arraigned to our knowledge. But based on what we've seen so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest they've got anything. Maybe Flynn will flip now that his son is caught up, but that's if he knows anything, too.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


ETA: Also, what Introvert and I are discussing is a case, from June, where a federal judge threw out ALL the evidence seized during an illegal search and seizure (material that was outside the scope of the warrant was seized).

But all of the evidence from that seizure was suppressed...even the stuff that was covered by the warrant. The feds have since been forced to drop the charges in that case.


If an officer ever asks to see or look through your phone and you've used the phone for voice msgs, texts, emails, etc with an attorney, DON'T deny access on grounds they don't have a warrant. DO deny access on the basis that you are unwilling to waive your right to attorney-client privilege. It makes it much more difficult for them to parse if they do decide they have cause or a warrant, and easier for you to argue later they didn't make every effort to avoid conflict with your privilege.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I can't imagine Manafort is so crazy about Trump that he swallowed his tongue earlier just so he could get his face in the news, lose all his assets, and face serious prison time.


Which is why I think he's not the guy with dirt on Trump if there is any.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Makes sense. Thanks for the tip.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek


Who cares about Flynn? He's his own man. Just like Manafort, Gates, Papi, etc.

This too has nothing to do with the President.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
Who is defending Flynn?



The President.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

10000000000:1


edit on 11/6/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

More to the point. Flynn could have been charged months ago.

The question is why he has gone "dark" and why hasn't he or his son been charged?

I highly suspect the answer is that Flynn & Co are cooperating with Mueller.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: aethertek


Who cares about Flynn? He's his own man. Just like Manafort, Gates, Papi, etc.

This too has nothing to do with the President.


Manafort = Campaign Chief
Gates = Deputy Campaign Manager and co-Inaugriation/transition head.
Papadopoulus = Foreign Policy Advisor
Flynn = Chief National Security Advisor



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



In Manafort's case, his attorneys actually warned the feds that there were materials protected by attorney-client privilege. That's not the case for Wey. The feds just seized stuff outside of the scope of the warrant.


Exactly. A very important difference.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: aethertek


Who cares about Flynn? He's his own man. Just like Manafort, Gates, Papi, etc.

This too has nothing to do with the President.


Manafort = Campaign Chief
Gates = Deputy Campaign Manager and co-Inaugriation/transition head.
Papadopoulus = Foreign Policy Advisor
Flynn = Chief National Security Advisor


All Implants.

"Keep your enemies closer"

Now they fall as planned.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I can't imagine Manafort is so crazy about Trump that he swallowed his tongue earlier just so he could get his face in the news, lose all his assets, and face serious prison time.


Which is why I think he's not the guy with dirt on Trump if there is any.


I don't believe he is either. I think he is a stepping stone to bigger fish.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



In Manafort's case, his attorneys actually warned the feds that there were materials protected by attorney-client privilege. That's not the case for Wey. The feds just seized stuff outside of the scope of the warrant.


Exactly. A very important difference.


Agree. In both cases, the seizures are in violation of the suspects'/defendents' Fourth Amendment Rights.

The important difference is that it's less egregious for the feds to inadvertently seize materials outside of the scope of a search warrant, than to do it intentionally after having been informed that some materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and seize and/or review them anyway.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



In Manafort's case, his attorneys actually warned the feds that there were materials protected by attorney-client privilege. That's not the case for Wey. The feds just seized stuff outside of the scope of the warrant.


Exactly. A very important difference.


Agree. In both cases, the seizures are in violation of the suspects'/defendents' Fourth Amendment Rights.

The important difference is that it's less egregious for the feds to inadvertently seize materials outside of the scope of a search warrant, than to do it intentionally after having been informed that some materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and seize and/or review them anyway.


For Manafort's 4th amendment right to have been violated, his attorneys would have to prove the violation was intentional and negligent.

In Wey's case, that was easily done. In this case, I see nothing to suggest this was intentional or reckless.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



In Manafort's case, his attorneys actually warned the feds that there were materials protected by attorney-client privilege. That's not the case for Wey. The feds just seized stuff outside of the scope of the warrant.


Exactly. A very important difference.


Agree. In both cases, the seizures are in violation of the suspects'/defendents' Fourth Amendment Rights.

The important difference is that it's less egregious for the feds to inadvertently seize materials outside of the scope of a search warrant, than to do it intentionally after having been informed that some materials are protected by attorney-client privilege and seize and/or review them anyway.


For Manafort's 4th amendment right to have been violated, his attorneys would have to prove the violation was intentional and negligent.

In Wey's case, that was easily done. In this case, I see nothing to suggest this was intentional or reckless.


Well, there's nothing to suggest if it was or wasn't.

We need the details on when the feds were notified about the materials, if they reviewed them, if they acted based on information they may have seen in them, and how quickly they returned them.

ETA: OH, and if they passed any of it on to Schneiderman.
edit on 11/6/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Well, there's nothing to suggest if it was or wasn't.

We need the details on when the feds were notified about the materials, if they reviewed them, if they acted based on information they may have seen in them, and how quickly they returned them.

ETA: OH, and if they passed any of it on to Schneiderman.


True. Once all of that information is out, the burden of proof lies with Manafort's lawyers. Not a small feat, but any means.

So that is one of the reasons why I do not find this particular aspect to be very important.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Well, there's nothing to suggest if it was or wasn't.

We need the details on when the feds were notified about the materials, if they reviewed them, if they acted based on information they may have seen in them, and how quickly they returned them.

ETA: OH, and if they passed any of it on to Schneiderman.


True. Once all of that information is out, the burden of proof lies with Manafort's lawyers. Not a small feat, but any means.

So that is one of the reasons why I do not find this particular aspect to be very important.


Ha...and that's exactly why I find it so interesting!

If Manafort's attorneys are the ones that let the feds know there were documents that were protected by attorney-client privilege, then they not only documented it all -- to the fullest extent -- but they made sure to make the most of it, too.


edit on 11/6/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Well, there's nothing to suggest if it was or wasn't.

We need the details on when the feds were notified about the materials, if they reviewed them, if they acted based on information they may have seen in them, and how quickly they returned them.

ETA: OH, and if they passed any of it on to Schneiderman.


True. Once all of that information is out, the burden of proof lies with Manafort's lawyers. Not a small feat, but any means.

So that is one of the reasons why I do not find this particular aspect to be very important.


Ha...and that's exactly why I find it so interesting!

If Manafort's attorneys are the ones that let the feds know there were documents that were protected by attorney-client privilege, then they not only documented it all -- to the fullest extent...but they made sure to make the most of it, too.


There are a lot of if's that have to all fall in place for it to be a 4th amendment violation.

Considering they gave the documents back, the attorneys are going to know exactly what they may have seen and the prosecution would be idiots to include any info in those documents in the prosecution, unless they can be corroborated elsewhere.

Honestly, I don't see this becoming a big issue.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I don't think it would have happened and the info leaked to the press if it wasn't destined to become an issue.

But, I know you have confidence in the DOJ and FBI...and that justice will be done, no matter the outcome. I feel like the DOJ and FBI are basically an Andy Cohen production.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I don't think it would have happened and the info leaked to the press if it wasn't destined to become an issue.


Or it has been leaked to the press to become a small beacon of hope that somehow Manafort will get off. Many have latched on to it for some reason, but I think it's small potatoes.



But, I know you have confidence in the DOJ and FBI...and that justice will be done, no matter the outcome.


I do. For the most part, the DoJ and the FBI do great work.



I feel like the DOJ and FBI are basically an Andy Cohen production.


As is your right. I don't go down the conspiracy rabbit hole as far as you do.

That's ok though.




top topics



 
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join