DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Foxx]

42 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yes but there was some chitchat that it would be "bad" for him. Anyone know why it would be bad?

i'm not sure. however, i think if/when you submit a plea of guilt, you forfeit (or are severely limited in scope) any ability you otherwise would normally possess to appeal the conviction and sentence.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yes but there was some chitchat that it would be "bad" for him. Anyone know why it would be bad?

 

The negative is that the full indictment would be reinstated, and he would likely have to go through a lengthy trial on all charges.

 

This would be: 1.) Expensive; and 2.) Really bad if any of the original charges are provable.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

The negative is that the full indictment would be reinstated, and he would likely have to go through a lengthy trial on all charges.

 

This would be: 1.) Expensive; and 2.) Really bad if any of the original charges are provable.

So, even though the charges were fabricated, the FBI admitted there was no crime, and this man has been used and abused by a punitive system for years, he is hosed? And, because he pleads guilty, he cannot sue the government for any reason, correct?  So, he is broke, had his reputation shredded, and there is nothing this poor man can do about it?

I wonder when Trump will pardon him?

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Koko78]

20 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, even though the charges were fabricated, the FBI admitted there was no crime, and this man has been used and abused by a punitive system for years, he is hosed? And, because he pleads guilty, he cannot sue the government for any reason, correct?  So, he is broke, had his reputation shredded, and there is nothing this poor man can do about it?

I wonder when Trump will pardon him?

 

I never bothered to look at the original indictment, so I don't know whether or not all of the charges were fabricated, or if most were with some minor technical charge having a minimal amount of teeth.

 

However, pleading guilty does tend to hinder a civil suit against the government for wrongfully/maliciously prosecuting you. You can't admit guilt, then later try to sue that they fabricated everything. Defense Exhibit A would quite literally be the transcript of him admitting guilt in open court. He would have to have the charges dismissed (or at least vacate his guilty plea) before he can go after the government.

 

I would suspect he has a damned good argument for vacating the guilty plea, but I have no idea if he will pull the trigger. I agree with the previous assertion that his former attorneys did not represent him well.

[Hedge]

FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications, in rare public order

 

Quote

In a rare public order Tuesday, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court strongly criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process, giving the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions, in the wake of findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

 

There is nothing else at the link (except a video that is not related)

I haven't found the rebuke itself, yet.

 

EDIT: The page has been updated and now contains an article.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Hedge

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Hedge said:

FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications, in rare public order

 

 

There is nothing else at the link (except a video that is not related)

I haven't found the rebuke itself, yet.

 

Here it is: 

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc 19 02 191217.pdf

 

(Note who wrote the memo... and then remember this -- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

More: 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Here it is: 

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc 19 02 191217.pdf

 

(Note who wrote the memo... and then remember this -- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

More: 

 

<.snip>

THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects ...

</snip>

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to FISC Rule of Procedure 62(a), that the government shall, no later than December 20, 2019, complete a declassification review of the above-referenced order of December 5, 2019, in anticipation of the FISC' s publishing that order. In view of the information released to the public in the OIG Report, the Court expects that such re view will entail minimal if any redactions.


Rosemary Collyer is done playin', apparently.  Tough to find out you were in on a soft-coup you didn't even know about. I do wonder what exactly Congress plans to do about all of this?


 

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Rosemary Collyer is done playin', apparently.  Tough to find out you were in on a soft-coup you didn't even know about. I do wonder what exactly Congress plans to do about all of this?

 

Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended.

Maybe this is simply a response to ensure the court continues (the Senate was making some rumblings, but haha, unlikely it goes away), and that the current members still are sitting on the FISC?

(Note: I do not disagree with you, simply playing devil's advocate.)
 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Maybe they should have thought about this when they were just acting as a rubber stamp for the FBI. These judges should all be fired from FISC, and the court ended.

Or how about simply putting James Comey in prison for a REALLY LONG time!  That should send the appropriate message.

[Deranged Rhino]

Techno weighing in. 

 

 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Maybe this is simply a response to ensure the court continues (the Senate was making some rumblings, but haha, unlikely it goes away), and that the current members still are sitting on the FISC?

(Note: I do not disagree with you, simply playing devil's advocate.)
 

 

Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too.

 

Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too.

 

Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court.

I hope not. I truly hope not.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[keepthefaith]

7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Oh, I've no doubt that this is total CYA move from the judges who want to keep whatever extra pay/power they get from being on the FISC. It will work, too.

 

Then they'll get right back to the business of trampling on civil rights from the cozy confines of a secret court.

 

Could be they were in on it and this is just their temporary cover or maybe they were had by their Chief Roberts.

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Could be they were in on it and this is just their temporary cover or maybe they were had by their Chief Roberts.

 

I don't think they were in on it. I just think they were rubber-stamping applications due to inherent laziness and indifference to the inherent problems with a secret court that has broad powers to destroy civil liberties.

 

There is no other reason for 97-99%ish of all applications being approved.

 

Judges almost always want more money and more power, at all levels of government.

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I don't think they were in on it. I just think they were rubber-stamping applications due to inherent laziness and indifference to the inherent problems with a secret court that has broad powers to destroy civil liberties.

 

There is no other reason for 97-99%ish of all applications being approved.

 

Judges almost always want more money and more power, at all levels of government.

99.97% to be exact. That number would be closer to 100% if not for the Carter Page requests that were originally turned down. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

22 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

99.97% to be exact. That number would be closer to 100% if not for the Carter Page requests that were originally turned down. 

 

 

....BIGGER percentage than a rubber stamp Grand Jury indictment.....Judge Wapner presiding....SMH........

 

[Deranged Rhino]