Politics US Edition Volume II

[Gromnir]

24 minutes ago, Malcador said:

I guess Flynn never read Miranda.

miranda is relevant to custodial interrogations subsequent to arrest. flynn were not arrested when he lied to law enforcement. 

however, if you are attempting to convince law enforcement to discontinue investigations, then refusing to speak with law enforcement, which is your right, is frequent abandoned by folks such as flynn. try and imagine what woulda' happened if flynn had refused to speak to the fbi. sure, is not a crime to refuse to speak to the fbi, but the fbi and the washington post would quick announce to the world that general flynn had refused to cooperate with an fbi investigation involving russian agents. in 2020 such would be what we would expect from a trump appointee, but in 2016 it woulda' caused a p00p storm o' bad press and a whole lotta conjecture on both sides o' the aisle as to why the new appointed NSA were refusing to aid in fbi investigations. 

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Which is even more weird that US have a law that forces individual to do so if it's FBI.

this were wrong precise 'cause of 5th amendment. there is no such law and 5th amendment precludes such.

duh.

is odd how one person may be so preternatural wrong in spite o' being so certain they is correct.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

2 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

miranda is relevant to custodial interrogations subsequent to arrest. flynn were not arrested when he lied to law enforcement. 

I know, was a joke on him talking when he probably didn't need to.

[Skarpen]

42 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

this were wrong precise 'cause of 5th amendment. there is no such law and 5th amendment precludes such.

So can you or cannot you lie to the FBI when they investigate you?

Edited November 26, 2020 by Skarpen

[Bartimaeus]

Turning off my ad-blocker to try and figure out what the context of Gromnir repeatedly posting the same obvious and clear point over and over got me like:

 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

So can you or cannot you lie to the FBI when they investigate you?

5th amendment gives protection against officials compelling you to give answers that would incriminate you, but purposefully lying to officials when you have vowed to tell truth is a crime

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Elerond said:

5th amendment gives protection against officials compelling you to give answers that would incriminate you, but purposefully lying to officials when you have vowed to tell truth is a crime

 

6 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So can you or cannot you lie to the FBI when they investigate you?

From my understanding of this matter I think Gromnir may be explaining it in  a way that is perhaps overly complicated even if he is 100% correct

@ Skarpen 

Okay so basically Flynn wasnt setup to "self-incriminate " himself, the FBI didnt ask him questions that  led to him being jailed. The FBI would have asked him a series of questions about his meetings with the Russians in a formal interview. In that interview Flynn denied certain meetings with the Russians

So for example, he could have been asked 

FBI: " did you ever meet with Mr Rasputin " 

Flynn: " no I never met with Mr Rasputin " 

Flynn then signed a document saying " I never met with Mr Rasputin "

This was a lie as he did meet with Mr  Rasputin. Flynn could have easily told the truth but he made a decision to lie to the FBI, this is not entrapment and the FBI did have a valid reason to prosecute him. I hope this makes sense?

What is interesting about Flynn's lying is why did he lie ? He didnt do it to protect Trump as we now know Trump didnt meet with the Russians so I believe he was protecting himself for some reason. Personally I think sending him to jail seems a little extreme but the law is the law and in most countries you cannot lie to the authorities during interviews 

I

Edited November 27, 2020 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

5th amendment gives protection against officials compelling you to give answers that would incriminate you, but purposefully lying to officials when you have vowed to tell truth is a crime

Yes. That's where we started from. I understand it's a crime in US. I criticized it being a crime. 

If I understand correctly 5th amendment only works if you specifically plead the 5th and it only allows you to be silent. Which is a greatly flawed design in my opinion.

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

From my understanding of this matter I think Gromnir may be explaining it in  a way that is perhaps overly complicated even if he is 100% correct

@ Skarpen 

Okay so basically Flynn wasnt setup to "self-incriminate " himself, the FBI didnt ask him questions that  led to him being jailed. The FBI would have asked him a series of questions about his meetings with the Russians in a formal interview. In that interview Flynn denied certain meetings with the Russians

So for example, he could have been asked 

FBI: " did you ever meet with Mr Rasputin " 

Flynn: " no I never met with Mr Rasputin " 

Flynn then signed a document saying " I never met with Mr Rasputin "

This was a lie as he did meet with Mr  Rasputin. Flynn could have easily told the truth but he made a decision to lie to the FBI, this is not entrapment and the FBI did have a valid reason to prosecute him. I hope this makes sense?

What is interesting about Flynn's lying is why did he lie ? He didnt do it to protect Trump as we now know Trump didnt meet with the Russians so I believe he was protecting himself for some reason. Personally I think sending him to jail seems a little extreme but the law is the law and in most countries you cannot lie to the authorities during interviews 

I understand the situation Bruce. I understand it's a crime in US. It's not in most other western countries unless (this is important!) your official status in a case is a witness. 

In any other country Flynn would not be persecuted for lying to law enforcement about meeting Mr Rasputin. Only for meeting him if that was somehow criminal. 

To put it in the most simple term if police asks you "Did you do it?" You can in most western law abiding countries say "No!" without any additional repercusions, even if you actually did it.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Skarpen

[BruceVC]

26 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 

To put it in the most simple term if police asks you "Did you do it?" You can in most western law abiding countries say "No!" without any additional repercusions, even if you actually did it.

 

Yes that does make sense, I am sure even in SA I can lie to the police and they wont prosecute me for that lie outside of a proper court appearance and then the charge is known as perjury 

But what I think is different here is the FBI have a certain legal status and authority so when they interview you in the way Flynn was interviewed than you can be prosecuted for lying

But you agree with this so I am not sure what we all debating anymore ?

 

[Chairchucker]

Not that familiar with US law. Is the situation roughly that Flynn had the legal right to simply refuse to talk, but Skarpen believes he should have the legal right to outright lie to whichever government agencies he wants to lie to?

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Not that familiar with US law. Is the situation roughly that Flynn had the legal right to simply refuse to talk, but Skarpen believes he should have the legal right to outright lie to whichever government agencies he wants to lie to?

My understanding of the points raised is Skarpen is saying in  most countries you can lie to the police and not be prosecuted for that lie, I agree with this in the sense during a normal police interview you can lie and criminals often to do 

But you cannot lie to certain government agencies in certain countries in specific interviews like the FBI in the US

In SA I dont think we have  a government agency like the FBI where its a criminal offense to lie....certain people lie all the time to all our government agencies. This doesnt apply to our court systems where you cannot lie as I mentioned because  if the mendaciousness is revealed you will be charged for perjury  

[Skarpen]

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes that does make sense, I am sure even in SA I can lie to the police and they wont prosecute me for that lie outside of a proper court appearance and then the charge is known as perjury 

But what I think is different here is the FBI have a certain legal status and authority so when they interview you in the way Flynn was interviewed than you can be prosecuted for lying

But you agree with this so I am not sure what we all debating anymore ?

 

I don't agree, I merely acknowledge that it is a criminal offence, obviously since he was charged for it. But I don't agree with it and think it's wrong and most law systems agree with me.

And I think FBI is only special in a way that with some training they could be almost as competent as law enforcement in other countries.

17 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Not that familiar with US law. Is the situation roughly that Flynn had the legal right to simply refuse to talk, but Skarpen believes he should have the legal right to outright lie to whichever government agencies he wants to lie to?

I never said anything about whichever government agencies. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Skarpen

[Skarpen]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

My understanding of the points raised is Skarpen is saying in most law abiding countries countries you can lie to the police if you are suspect or accused and not be prosecuted for that lie, I agree with this in the sense during a normal police interview you can lie and criminals people often to do regardless of their innocent or guilty. 

Fixed

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Yes. That's where we started from. I understand it's a crime in US. I criticized it being a crime. 

If I understand correctly 5th amendment only works if you specifically plead the 5th and it only allows you to be silent. Which is a greatly flawed design in my opinion

Giving false testimony is crime in most of the countries and not just for police but also for banks etc. organizations when you swear that information that you have given is truth for example when you apply for bank account, loan or even phone subscription etc.

You don't need to plead the 5th, 5th protections means that FBI, police or any official has no right to torture you or threaten you with prison or any other punishment if you don't give testimony that incriminates you. 

[Guard Dog]

39 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Giving false testimony is crime in most of the countries and not just for police but also for banks etc. organizations when you swear that information that you have given is truth for example when you apply for bank account, loan or even phone subscription etc.

You don't need to plead the 5th, 5th protections means that FBI, police or any official has no right to torture you or threaten you with prison or any other punishment if you don't give testimony that incriminates you. 

That’s the 8th Amend actually. But your point is correct . The 5th protects against compulsory self incrimination, seizure of person or property without due process or compensation, double jeopardy, and requires grand jury indictment before a person can be tried. The 8th protects against cruel and unusual punishment, torture, etc

Edited November 27, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, Elerond said:

Giving false testimony is crime in most of the countries and not just for police but also for banks etc. organizations when you swear that information that you have given is truth for example when you apply for bank account, loan or even phone subscription etc.

You don't need to plead the 5th, 5th protections means that FBI, police or any official has no right to torture you or threaten you with prison or any other punishment if you don't give testimony that incriminates you. 

Information given to banks etc. is a different matter and lying to those are covered by specific laws in criminal codes. So that's a separate issue. As I stated before lying to the police is only criminal if you are a witness. And for example in Poland accused/suspect doesn't give testimony, as I stated above. So that is also a separate issue and not to be bundled together by any means.

From what I heard you have to specifically plead the fifth and in a specific way if you don't want to answer a question when questioned by lawmakers in USA. At least according to this guy:
Don't Talk to the Police Redux (James Duane) - YouTube

Edited November 27, 2020 by Skarpen

[Elerond]

1 minute ago, Skarpen said:

Information given to banks etc. is a different matter and lying to those are covered by specific laws in criminal codes. So that's a separate issue. As I stated before lying to the police is only criminal if you are a witness. And for example in Poland accused/suspect doesn't give testimony, as I stated above. So that is also a separate issue and not to be bundled together by any means.

From what I heard you have to specifically plead the fifth and in a specific way if you don't want to answer a question when questioned by lawmakers in USA. At least according to this guy:
Don't Talk to the Police Redux (James Duane) - YouTube

It is not really, issue is same knowingly giving false statements to officials.

Flynn was not actually accused or suspected of crime when he was interviewed by FBI,  he was interviewed because he had told Vice President Pence different account of what he had talked with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak than were in transcripts of the Flynn's call with Kislyak. Later on Flynn plead guilty to purposefully lying FBI during that interview when in order to avoid charges of illegally receiving money from foreign power. 

Pleading fifth comes to play when court or investigation panel compels person to give testimony and person knows that said testimony would incriminate them, either forcing them lie under oath or revealing crime that they have committed. People who plead fifth aren't usually those who have been accused of crime, but people who have called to give witness or other testimony in the case and case may not even be a criminal case per se.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

It is not really, issue is same knowingly giving false statements to officials.

Flynn was not actually accused or suspected of crime when he was interviewed by FBI,  he was interviewed because he had told Vice President Pence different account of what he had talked with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak than were in transcripts of the Flynn's call with Kislyak. Later on Flynn plead guilty to purposefully lying FBI during that interview when in order to avoid charges of illegally receiving money from foreign power. 

Pleading fifth comes to play when court or investigation panel compels person to give testimony and person knows that said testimony would incriminate them, either forcing them lie under oath or revealing crime that they have committed. People who plead fifth aren't usually those who have been accused of crime, but people who have called to give witness or other testimony in the case and case may not even be a criminal case per se.

I don't agree with that. First of all you mentioned banks in your previous post which are not "officials" by any definition and giving false information to them falls into completely separate category, so lets leave those out. Second of all bundling all "officials" into one category is incorrect. Talking to the health inspector or tax inspector is not the same thing as talking to the law enforcement. You have certain rights and obligations that vastly differ between different type of officials and law enforcement is a category in and of itself.

You are making no sense. If FBI was looking into the differences between transcript and what was presented to VP, then what would you call those actions? They were making an investigation. And if they were investigation what Flynn said to VP, then who was Flynn in this investigation if not a suspect? And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges then clearly he knew he was a suspect and could end up with charges. So it's clearly a situation I'm talking from the beginning, a law that penalizes lying to FBI is taking away the right to defense for suspect/accused.

I don't know if your definition is correct. I was under impression that 5th amendment apply even if the person doesn't know said testimony would incriminate them and that it could be used to avoid all questions regardless of their nature and the nature of questioning. Was I incorrent in this?

Edited November 27, 2020 by Skarpen

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, they obviously suspected Flynn of a crime since they had the recordings of the meeting with Kislyak. I don't see how there's any realistic argument that they didn't. Obviously they'd frame it as a way to 'clear the air' or whatever and not tell Flynn they knew, but they did already knew that Flynn had lied to Pence..

The trouble with FBI investigations is that they always seem to be primarily fishing expeditions where they hope they catch someone in a lie so they can leverage that against them, and they seem... less than careful about informing someone when they've shifted to being a suspect as opposed to a witness. They are definitely very selective on what constitutes, for example, working for a foreign power. If they applied the same criteria as Flynn/ Russia to Saudi Arabia or Israel I'd have little doubt that half the US government would be in legal trouble. Yes Gromnir, I'll take your objection to that as already said.

[Malcador]

I think they are 1-41 or something, now ?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-rejects-trump-pa-election-180520069.html

 

[Skarpen]

I don't think it matters as the endgame seems to be Supreme Court.

[Malcador]

With these cases being rejected for having feeble standing, can't imagine that suddenly going Trump's way.  And I believe no new evidence can be introduced to SCOTUS.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

An actual judicial coup is about as likely as the interim Secretary of Defense staging a military coup, anyone saying otherwise is displaying symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome*.

*The funniest thing about the situation is how the extremes of both sides suffer from exactly the same fact distortion field just with the exact opposite application. Democrat TDS sufferers: Everything is evidence Trump is going to stage a coup,  how terrible! Trumpist TDS suffereres: Everything's evidence Trump is going to retain his position via unorthodox- but perfectly legal- means, how wonderful!

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

You are making no sense. If FBI was looking into the differences between transcript and what was presented to VP, then what would you call those actions? They were making an investigation. And if they were investigation what Flynn said to VP, then who was Flynn in this investigation if not a suspect? And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges then clearly he knew he was a suspect and could end up with charges. So it's clearly a situation I'm talking from the beginning, a law that penalizes lying to FBI is taking away the right to defense for suspect/accused.

Yeah Federal Bureau of Investigation 's job is to investigate things. Their job is also investigate backgrounds of all the members of government in order to ensure that there is no surprises there that could cause problems for the nation

suspect of what?

avoid what chargers?

again suspect of what?

and what charges?

They investigated if Russia had something over Flynn, as he had done opposite to what he told VP to have done. But giving false information to VP in briefing is not crime, which is why Flynn was only forced to resign.

Flynn himself pleaded guilty of lying to FBI in court, you don't need to take my word, just his own words. 

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

Flynn himself pleaded guilty of lying to FBI in court, you don't need to take my word, just his own words. 

What is even the point of replying to you if you don't even read what is being replied? That was never in question.

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

Yeah Federal Bureau of Investigation 's job is to investigate things.

You are backpedaling and running in circles.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Skarpen

[Elerond]

4 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

What is even the point of replying to you if you don't even read what is being replied? That was never in question.

You are backpedaling and running in circles.

"And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges"

It was comment to this claim that I have never made

You were claiming that FBI were investigating Flynn because of some crime they suspected him to have committed and your evidence was that FBI was investigating him, which is why I pointed out that FBI investigates all the members of the government, because that is their job. 

I see that you have hard time to come up with actual arguments, but you could at least be honest about it