Mueller Postpones Flynn sentencing????

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RadioRobert

Given the FBI agent behind Flynn's investigation is Strzok... Given McCabe is gone due to having FBI agents change 302's after the fact...

Given what we know right now, Trump would be an idiot to submit to an interview. It's Mueller's job to try to hang you, but you don't have to help him.

The irony in all of this is the DOJ has a requirement (policy) that they dont indict sitting Presidents. So if Mueller violates doj policies what5 next?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier
a reply to: luthier


yeah you keep bouncing from informant, to status hearing, back to something a judge said who was recused and replaced on the Flynn case, back to informant, to something insane about Chris Christie, who is a Republican and not a liberal on the left.

As I said, you hang in there as you will eventually get something right. Just not today.

Ah you just have trouble reading.

On Dec 1st. When he pled guilty a status hearing was set for Feb 1st. That is a fact.

Tomorrow is Feb 1st.

No sentencing hearing was ever scheduled.

Flynn himself is an informant working with Mueller. Cooperating with him and will be given a lighter sentence based on how much he cooperates.

Chris Christie is not a liberal. You said only liberals think flynn is working with Mueller.

Was that slow enough.

Basically your wrong on every account and trying to save face.

The sentencing hearing was not tomorrow it never was.

The revised judge has nothing to do with the court dates.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't think they'll actually indict. He'll just conclude his report and hand it to Justice/Congress and let them decide to impeach or not.
But if they do, then there will be another #storm, and the justices can take up the constitutional crisis.

a reply to: luthier

If that is what you need to get through your day then its all you man. I will stick to the facts and not made up bs by desperate democrats and their minions.

Anything else?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't think they'll actually indict. He'll just conclude his report and hand it to Justice/Congress and let them decide to impeach or not.
But if they do, then there will be another #storm, and the justices can take up the constitutional crisis.

An impeachment vote already failed... So will the others.

A last minute desperate attempt by the left to justify Clintons loss by engaging in a coup based on democratic lies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah.

It was a joint status report.

Not Mueller stopping a sentencing hearing.

There is nothing unusual about it.

Now I have nothing to argue about the validity of Mueller case you could be right.

We just don't know. But people sure like to pretend they know..

The facts are as stated and have nothing to do with desperate democrats. They have to do with court proceedings and trying to get information from a witness.

And by the way I have a feeling lynch and Obama didse dirty work here and am an independent libertarian not a Democrat. I think all partisans are part of the narratives from their masters.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

There's no excuse for not electronically recording FBI interviews, in this day and age. I think nearly everyone expects them to and most people are very surprised to learn the FBI has a policy against it.

It is shocking they are still so backwards. There must be a good (bad) reason for this.

I would hope as the DOJ is investigating McCabe, they look into these allegations.

They claim it interferes with their interview methods and building a rapport with the interviewee.

It's a bad reason. One that I don't buy, at all.

Actually, it does make people more likely to talk, and it's better for putting them at ease. I'm not sure that's sufficient reason to do it, but that's why it is done.
What you can do if you are ever visited is explain you want the conversation recorded and record it yourself. And when you begin recording state the time and date, and then ask the agents if you have previously discussed any factual matters beyond an introduction and your desire to record this visit. That keeps them from saying you said things before you began recording.
And the better plan by far to actually having a conversation is simply to ask them for their business card and tell them you'd like to consult a lawyer before making any statements, and that you'll give them a call.

Well, correct. I would record my own interview. I would tell the FBI if I was in a state that required two party consent. I would not if I was in a state that only required one party's consent.

However, I disagree that it interferes with a rapport or that it puts people at ease. On the contrary, I wouldn't be at ease, at all, if I thought the FBI was writing down whatever they *wanted* their notes to show I said.

Also, I believe most people expect to be recorded because most LE do actually electronically record interviews and/or allow interviewees to sign off on written statements.

a reply to: Vasa Croe


Maybe he realizes it SHOULD be irrelevant since the investigation was based entirely on speculative and even fabricated BS.

Perjury trap should be seen for what it was, that he lied about immaterial issues and shouldn't have been charged in an investigation that should've never been a criminal matter.

THE MEMO will be released, despite Schiff-head's last minute hail Mary. He made an accusation/claim, the burden of proof to show THE MEMO was altered is squarely on his shoulders. Failing to PROVE THIS to the President would likely result in immediate release, or Trump releasing via EO since the majority of congress has made its intent clear: TO RELEASE THE MEMO unlike the scheming, lying, paranoid, hysterical and super emotional Democrats.

Mueller needs to be fired, Rosenstein needs to be fired. Any non-Trump appointees should be discharged, which is fully within POTUS's rights. Trump shouldn't cave to Democrat pressure. At the end of the day, anyone trying to remove him over his lawful exercise could easily be thought of as a domestic security threat, and labeled an unlawful enemy combatant or some designation under the espionage act.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Also, I believe most people expect to be recorded because most LE do actually electronically record interviews and/or allow interviewees to sign off on written statements.

You can thank SCOTUS for that. All interviews for certain major crimes must be recorded. Kind of throws a wrench in field interviews at the scene.

a reply to: JBurns


Sessions is the wildcard. He looked strangely pre-occupied at the SOTU address Tuesday night. Deer in headlights come to mind.

You guys are making much more if this then it is. Often times prosecutors will suspend sentencing until a person meets the requirements of the deal they made. If he is sentenced there is no longer any reason for him to cooperate with Mueller. In fact once sentencing is done he's free and clear. And for him he won't recieve more than a fine.

He was convicted on a procedural crime and no judge is going to give him serious jail time. They will fine him and bar him from getting security clearances

More charges coming...

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Filed today...Mueller postponed sentencing for Flynn....

Odd timing methinks!

source

Link to pdf

Download and look at top of pdf...Filed Jan 31...wonder what happened that has Mueller postponing the sentencing?

It means Mueller is not done yet, even if the defendant has plead guilty.

Mueller doesn't need to be done....sentencing is up to a judge. Mueller got the guilty plea....

This suggests something else has come up that potentially changes the charges against Flynn...and my guess is it has something to do with the memo.

Nope.

It suggests that Mueller still has use for Flynn..

And Gates BTW, both hearings were postponed.

By JOINT request of both sides attorneys in both cases.

It means he is not ready to recommend probation or leniency in light of cooperation yet.

The investigation is ongoing. All Attorneys on both sides agreed to April and May dates respectively for gates and Flynn.

Not just my opinion, but several lawyers and legal commentators agree that is clearly the cause.

This hearing would have been saying they no longer needed Flynn to contribute to the investigation and they were ready to pat him on the back and say thanks and recommend leniency.

Not there yet.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It means Mueller has to go over the case put together against Gates and Flynn since Strzok was the lead agent for both investigations. For Flynn there is concern they denied Flynn access to a lawyer by misrepresenting the reason they wanted to speak to him.

The memo comes out tomorrow morning (Friday) so im sure we will see the other issues that the left has ignored.

IF these cases stem from the FISA abuse then the cases are done... with prejudice.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

It means Mueller has to go over the case put together against Gates and Flynn since Strzok was the lead agent for both investigations.

You make stuff up near daily.

PSSSST...FLYNN has already Plead Guilty and signed a Plea Deal.

This was about sentencing.

FLYNNS Lawyers JOINTLY with Special Counsel ALSO asked for the extension.

You know all this and yet still make stuff up?

a reply to: soberbacchus

I see you still have reading comprehension problems. What part of what I said dop you not understand? Nevermind the fact it is fact.

Strzok was the lead agent investigating Flynn.
Strzok and another FBI agent mislead Flynn the morning they went to see him at the Whitehouse.
Strzok did not allow Flynn to have a lawyer.

All have been reported. What p[art is confusing you?

a reply to: Xcathdra
The DOJ policies exist because there is a convincing case to be made for an indictment of a sitting president to be unconstiutional. Which is exactly why Mueller wont indict Trump on a technicality like obstruction of justice (which would stand on very shaky legal grounds on its own). He MIGHT indict Trump if he has something akin to high treason on him which would make impeachment a certainty. But even then the smarter way to play this would let the impeachmemt move forward and indict after removal.
Of course Mueller doesnt have anything close to high treason on Trump (anything really at this point), so he will hand down a report to Congress stating Trump was mean to the FBI or some similiar irrelevant bs and show himself out. The Dems will of course start impeachment proceedings if they get the House this year but even if the win the House vote on some obstruction bs (very unlikely) the Senate wont vote to remove. Everybody wins. Sort of.
An Indictment on a technicality will end in front of the Supreme Court which more likley then not will side with Trump, creating a constitutional crisis. Wont happen.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you serious? Leniency for lying about an activity that wasnt illegal? And all based on the incredibly stupid Form 302 system? With no lawyer present to confirm validity on the mere word of a proven turd like strzok?

Do you expect him to get life in prison instead? Lol

a reply to: mightmight


We are already having a constitutional crisis.