DOJ drops all charges against Michael Flynn!

[Mountain Man]

I think what a lot of people don't understand is the extent to which police can legally go to extract a confession....

• DNA trickery – there is no need to ask you nicely to submit to a DNA test if they can get a sufficient sample to test off the glass of water or can of soda they offered you.
• False evidence claims – they may claim your fingerprints were found at the scene or a paper trail was uncovered proving your involvement in the crime.
• Co-defendant confession claims – this is a classic ploy – pitting two potential suspects against each other. They tell each one that the other has already confessed, making it pointless to remain silent. One, if not both, usually fall for it.
• Non-existent eyewitness – they may tell you that they have an eyewitness who puts you at the scene of the crime or who saw you commit the crime.
• Failing tests – telling a suspect they failed a polygraph is a favorite police tactic.
• Implicit threats – this one is tricky. They can say things like “your buddy will go to jail if you don’t tell us the truth.” They cannot threaten family members with harm nor can they threaten to remove them from your home. (they can, however, threaten to expand the investigation into friends and family)
• Explicit promises of help – they frequently offer to help you if you confess or provide them with useful information. Keep in mind, however, that only a prosecuting attorney can actually agree to a plea deal. A law enforcement officer doesn’t have the authority to do that.

It's one thing to trick someone into confessing when there was an actual crime committed, and you have good reason to believe they may have done it. It's quite another to falsify evidence of a crime in order to coerce a "confession" from an innocent man.

[rogue06]

I think what a lot of people don't understand is the extent to which police can legally go to extract a confession....

• DNA trickery – there is no need to ask you nicely to submit to a DNA test if they can get a sufficient sample to test off the glass of water or can of soda they offered you.
• False evidence claims – they may claim your fingerprints were found at the scene or a paper trail was uncovered proving your involvement in the crime.
• Co-defendant confession claims – this is a classic ploy – pitting two potential suspects against each other. They tell each one that the other has already confessed, making it pointless to remain silent. One, if not both, usually fall for it.
• Non-existent eyewitness – they may tell you that they have an eyewitness who puts you at the scene of the crime or who saw you commit the crime.
• Failing tests – telling a suspect they failed a polygraph is a favorite police tactic.
• Implicit threats – this one is tricky. They can say things like “your buddy will go to jail if you don’t tell us the truth.” They cannot threaten family members with harm nor can they threaten to remove them from your home. (they can, however, threaten to expand the investigation into friends and family)
• Explicit promises of help – they frequently offer to help you if you confess or provide them with useful information. Keep in mind, however, that only a prosecuting attorney can actually agree to a plea deal. A law enforcement officer doesn’t have the authority to do that.

I personally know of a case where the husband was arrested for growing around a half dozen pot plants in the woods behind his house (they owned several acres including a couple in the woods). That he had some pot in the house was undeniable but that he was the one growing those plants was next to impossible to establish. The DA told him that if he didn't confess they would also charge his wife as a co-conspirator and when they both went to prison they were going to place their children in foster care.

[Cow Poke]

It's one thing to trick someone into confessing when there was an actual crime committed, and you have good reason to believe they may have done it. It's quite another to falsify evidence of a crime in order to coerce a "confession" from an innocent man.

And that's the problem with this whole "police are allowed to lie" thing.

[Cow Poke]

I personally know of a case where the husband was arrested for growing around a half dozen pot plants in the woods behind his house (they owned several acres including a couple in the woods). That he had some pot in the house was undeniable but that he was the one growing those plants was next to impossible to establish. The DA told him that if he didn't confess they would also charge his wife as a co-conspirator and when they both went to prison they were going to place their children in foster care.

I was much more creative in my bluffing.

[rogue06]

I was much more creative in my bluffing.

They weren't bluffing. The wife was charged although the charges were later dropped after the husband spent almost $20K on lawyers.

[Cow Poke]

They weren't bluffing. The wife was charged although the charges were later dropped after the husband spent almost $20K on lawyers.

Oh, I don't doubt that --- I'm just saying that I toed the line to always be telling the truth, but that took some creativity. When they cried, "You LIED to me", I'd say, "nope, I said...." and they'd see I was telling the truth.

My favorite example:

We had an outstanding warrant for a guy we could never seem to catch at home. From the PD one day, I just called him on the phone.

Poke: Mr Wilson, this is officer Poke at the police department, and I have something I need to discuss with you.
Wilson: Oh, yeah? What's it about?
Poke: Well, it's rather personal, and I'd much rather discuss it in person.
Wilson: Can you give me a clue what it's about?
Poke: Well, like I said, it's personal, and I really can't discuss it over the phone.

About an hour later, Wilson shows up at the PD asking for officer Poke.

I come out,

Poke: "are you [proper name Wilson]?"
Wilson: Yeah, what's this all about.
Poke: Please turn around and put your hands behind your back....
Wilson: EXPLETIVE!!!!!! I KNEW that's what this was!!!!

[firstfloor]

If justice is done, Barr will do time for this:

The Justice Department now argues that because the law was unlikely to be enforced in a criminal prosecution, there was essentially no legal basis to investigate Flynn.

"In short, Mr. Flynn's calls with the Russian ambassador—the only new information to arise since the FBI's decision to close out his investigation—did not constitute an articulable factual basis to open any counterintelligence investigation or criminal investigation," the Justice Department wrote last week.

But McCord and several former officials who handled the case say there were strong national security reasons to get to the bottom of Flynn's conduct. Primarily, Flynn's lies to senior Trump officials, including Pence, made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Indeed, the labeling of the Flynn investigation is a bit fuzzy -- it began as a counterintelligence probe but expanded over time after Flynn's potentially criminal conduct was uncovered. This includes the phone call, his lies during the FBI interview and eventually undisclosed foreign lobbying for Turkey that he admitted to in his plea but was ignored by the DOJ last week.

The Justice Department cited McCord's testimony to Mueller and said the rationale for the investigation was "vacillating" between counterintelligence and criminal. But McCord pushed back in her op-ed, saying, "that 'vacillation' has no bearing on whether the FBI was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview."

Yates, too, never said she objected to an investigation of Flynn. His lies to other members of the administration, according to Yates, were serious and deserved the White House's attention, at very least, and raised questions that investigators should have pursued.

"There was a real problem with his underlying conduct," Yates explained to the House Intelligence Committee, according to a November 2017 interview transcript released last week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/11/p...tes/index.html

[Mountain Man]

I love the title of this article:

"Nevertheless, Sidney Powell persisted"

In an honest universe, Ms. Powell, the courageous attorney who engineered a miraculous defense of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn that led to the Justice Department withdrawing criminal charges against President Trump's former National Security Adviser, would be hailed as a political and cultural hero. This solitary woman just faced down the epitome of the "old boys network" and emerged victorious.

https://townhall.com/columnists/larr...isted-n2568654

[Cow Poke]

If justice is done, Barr will do time for this:

Have you ever consulted with someone for interpretation of your dreams?

[Mountain Man]

If justice is done, Barr will do time for this:


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/11/p...tes/index.html

So let me get this straight: the FBI supposedly had the goods on Flynn for serious crimes that potentially compromised national security, and yet they felt the need to falsify evidence and threaten his son in order to coerce him into pleading guilty to a mere process crime?

As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test.

[JimL]

I have a long history of not telling the truth?



Comey said she did. Look it up.

No, Comey didn't say she did. Look it up.

[Cow Poke]

No, Comey didn't say she did..

He did.

Look it up

I did.

[JimL]

It's one thing to trick someone into confessing when there was an actual crime committed, and you have good reason to believe they may have done it. It's quite another to falsify evidence of a crime in order to coerce a "confession" from an innocent man.

Okay, so now you can stop with the "they threatened to charge his son" nonsense. Right? Which btw, there is no evidence that they did so anyway.

[firstfloor]

Have you ever consulted with someone for interpretation of your dreams?

I’ve been watching ‘Wolf Hall’. Trump is Henry VIII, and Barr is Thomas Cromwell, only a lot less charming. Ultimately, his head gets chopped off.

[JimL]

So let me get this straight: the FBI supposedly had the goods on Flynn for serious crimes that potentially compromised national security, and yet they felt the need to falsify evidence and threaten his son in order to coerce him into pleading guilty to a mere process crime?

As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test.

So, let me get this straight, you're so naive as to believe that Gen Flynn is stupid enough to twice plead guilty in court to something that he knows he never did? Dupe!