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

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

I already said it didn't apply to FISA warrants, but it makes surveillance a guarantee if you go that route.

 

You need to learn more about how the system works. 

 

Learn what the 702 program is. Learn how the FISC works. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, daz28 said:

I'm guessing Horowitz is in on it too.  

 

He was the first #DeepState savior to the #DeepStateTards

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

I'm guessing Horowitz is in on it too.  

 

Horowitz did not find this, point of fact. Tibs is wrong. As usual.

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You need to learn more about how the system works. 

 

Learn what the 702 program is. Learn how the FISC works. 

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record.  Making matters worse:

• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. 
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. 
• Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent.  The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. 
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.  
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone.  As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government.  That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches. 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm guessing Horowitz is in on it too.  

Lol, BINGO! 

 

Boy, before he reported, DR was like, "Just wait for the Horowitz report!" 

 

After it came out, not so much 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And the investigation of Flynn was found to have been warrented, even if there were a few problems. That's acoording to Horowitz 

If Flynn was such a traitor, how come this went through civilian law enforcement, and not military court marshal? Flynn can make absolutely no communication with anyone without the military intelligence services knowing about it in live time, which by definition if it was a criminal, those operatives would then be complicit in the crimes if they failed to act and report up the chain. Impossible. This whole game is about military intelligence penetrating and cleaning out the legacy civilian intelligence services.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record.  Making matters worse:

• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. 
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. 
• Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent.  The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. 
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.  
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone.  As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government.  That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches. 

 

Is that for Americans or foreign nationals? 

 

Where are you cutting and pasting from? What do you think this shows?

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

If Flynn was such a traitor, how come this went through civilian law enforcement, and not military court marshal? Flynn can make absolutely no communication with anyone without the military intelligence services knowing about it in live time, which by definition if it was a criminal, those operatives would then be complicit in the crimes if they failed to act and report up the chain. Impossible. This whole game is about military intelligence penetrating and cleaning out the legacy civilian intelligence services.

This is just an example of will the real deep state stand up.  We all know the whole government is thick as thieves, that's why I don't buy the deep state talk.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Don’t bother with facts. They’ve chosen, chosen, to remain willfully ignorant. 
 

Because they’re more interested in protecting the criminals and subverting the republic than they are restoring it. 
 

***** all of them. 

I

 

47 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I know that you're an expert, so this probably comes as no surprise, but the question whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea typically rests within the discretion of the court of first instance.  And where, as here, there's nothing in the plea allocution to call Flynn's guilt into question, well . . . don't hold your breath waiting for an "appellate smack-down."

 

People plead guilty for lots of different reasons.  But the fact remains here that Flynn, not the lawyers, chose to plead guilty.  If the evidence was trash, as you say, then it's tough to explain  why Flynn didn't carry the mantle of truth to trial. 

 

Hoax.  Based on Flynn's admissions Flynn is the one who lied.  More comments like that one will get you on the Hoax List, sir. 

Silliness. 

 

What the facts show is that the DOJ reviewed the facts of the case as they exist, recognized that the case was bad and moved to make things right.  You are correct in that General Flynn entered a plea for reasons only he can explain, ultimately chose to withdraw the plea, and the DOJ opted to discontinue the case.  It happens in our justice system sometimes...people are wrongfully convicted, evidence is planted/manipulated/withheld, defendants are wrongfully convicted and in some cases plead guilty because they are being crushed under the weight of unscrupulous prosecutors.   The summary:

 

Flynn was charged;

Flynn cut a deal to be done with things;

Flynn realized he was being had and moved to withdraw his plea;

DOJ review confirmed he was being had, released exculpatory evidence to his legal team, and dropped the case;

Seems to me the judge is playing politics, we'll have to see how his actions shake out;  

 

Putting aside the crushing financial and emotional weight of being under the thumb of unethical prosecutors, the case is an example of availing oneself of the resources available when justice isn't just, and coming out the other side stronger.  Thank God General Flynn had the strength to see it through. 

 

 

 

[daz28]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is that for Americans or foreign nationals? 

 

Where are you cutting and pasting from? What do you think this shows?

It's Patriot Act

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

This is just an example of will the real deep state stand up.  We all know the whole government is thick as thieves, that's why I don't buy the deep state talk.

 

How are you defining the deep state? 

Just now, daz28 said:

It's Patriot Act

 

What is the point you're trying to make with that excerpt? 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Reality Check said:

If Flynn was such a traitor, how come this went through civilian law enforcement, and not military court marshal? Flynn can make absolutely no communication with anyone without the military intelligence services knowing about it in live time, which by definition if it was a criminal, those operatives would then be complicit in the crimes if they failed to act and report up the chain. Impossible. This whole game is about military intelligence penetrating and cleaning out the legacy civilian intelligence services.

He should have just told the truth

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Shh... don't look back at the story that dominated the American media for four years.... 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

How are you defining the deep state? 

 

What is the point you're trying to make with that excerpt? 

1. I wouldn't be shocked if FBI covered up for FBI.  I wouldn't be shocked if military covered up for military.

 

2. They could have very easily went this route

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

I already said it didn't apply to FISA warrants, but it makes surveillance a guarantee if you go that route.

 

No, it doesn't. The FBI can conduct a surveillance on someone if they are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and it is related to the offense. To listen in on any typ of conversations requires authorization from a court, which is a a pretty extensive process.

 

The process is even more stringent when it comes to surveillance of US citizens for issues that are non-criminal and related to counter-terrorism/ national security/etc. The Patriot Act broadened powers and loosened restraints somewhat; however, there is still a process and that process still places a heavy burden on the government to justify surveilling a US citizen.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

1. I wouldn't be shocked if FBI covered up for FBI.  I wouldn't be shocked if military covered up for military.

 

2. They could have very easily went this route

 

What route? 

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you or pedantic, I'm trying to understand your point so we can talk to one another rather than past one another.

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

No, it doesn't. The FBI can conduct a surveillance on someone if they are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and it is related to the offense. To listen in on any typ of conversations requires authorization from a court, which is a a pretty extensive process.

 

The process is even more stringent when it comes to surveillance of US citizens for issues that are non-criminal and related to counter-terrorism/ national security/etc. The Patriot Act broadened powers and loosened restraints somewhat; however, there is still a process and that process still places a heavy burden on the government to justify surveilling a US citizen.

 

And, adding to this excellent post, the rules for criminal investigations are much different (with higher bars) than counterintelligence investigations.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

No, it doesn't. The FBI can conduct a surveillance on someone if they are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and it is related to the offense. To listen in on any typ of conversations requires authorization from a court, which is a a pretty extensive process.

 

The process is even more stringent when it comes to surveillance of US citizens for issues that are non-criminal and related to counter-terrorism/ national security/etc. The Patriot Act broadened powers and loosened restraints somewhat; however, there is still a process and that process still places a heavy burden on the government to justify surveilling a US citizen.

Not as heavy as you'd think.  It's the biggest breach of the Constitution EVER

You have a new notification billsfan1959 quoted you in a topic- DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Couns.url

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What route? 

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you or pedantic, I'm trying to understand your point so we can talk to one another rather than past one another.

 

And, adding to this excellent post, the rules for criminal investigations are much different (with higher bars) than counterintelligence investigations.

Surveillance

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Right, another one who has no problem with the FBI manipulating evidence, manufacturing probable cause, and lying to prosecutors and courts, all to target US citizens for political purposes....

 

But you are outraged over the case being dismissed against one of those US citizens.

 

Got it.

Just another day in America!

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Not as heavy as you'd think.  It's the biggest breach of the Constitution EVER

 

The Patriot Act? Or the notion of mass surveillance in general? Or both?

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Surveillance

 

Are you asking why the FBI needed to invent a case against Flynn if they could have just decided to surveil whomever they wish? Do I have that right?

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Patriot Act? Or the notion of mass surveillance in general? Or both?

It gave extreme latitude, because it was thrown together with no debate.  It basically says f the Constitution

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Are you asking why the FBI needed to invent a case against Flynn if they could have just decided to surveil whomever they wish? Do I have that right?

Pretty much