Quote:Some on the right were disappointed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy there would be no special counsel for now in the Hillary Clinton matters (email and Uranium One, one assumes) and the FISA/dossier/surveillance affair.

Not so fast. Hiding in plain sight in Sessions' letter was information considerably more important than a special counsel, pro or con. As he mentioned a week ago on Shannon Bream's show but now has made public officially, the attorney general has assigned a senior U.S. attorney to the investigation -- John Huber.

Importantly, working in concert with the inspector general, Mr. Huber can actually indict people. This is a criminal investigation. And it's happening now!

Indictments could come sooner than one might think, a lot sooner than from any special counsel investigation that would almost certainly go on for quite some time. Andrew McCabe seems concerned enough to have set up a #gofundme site for his legal defense. Undoubtedly, he's not the only one thinking that way.

The FBI, bluntly, is a mess. The level of incompetence mixed with bias is stunning. If the FBI were a private corporation, it would either be in Chapter 11 or fighting off stockholder rebellion or both. Unfortunately, however, it's our most important law enforcement agency,

Its litany of incompetence is extraordinary -- completely missing the Boston Marathon and Pulse night club terror murderers when they were staring them in the face and overlooking the Parkland schools mass killer when his violent psychosis should have been apparent to anyone with an IQ in triple digits are but three recent catastrophes on their watch.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/first-investigate-dismantle-fbi/

(03-31-2018 12:11 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Not so sure that's Huber's role. The article I read said Huber is to look into the matters congress has expressed concern about, then recommend or not a special counsel, if justified.
While he may conduct criminal investigations, they would be limited to possible violations occurring within his district. Some federal statutes have been interpreted very liberally (sorry guys) by the courts to say a crime can be investigated in the district it began in and thru any districts it was carried out in. So a child pornographer can be prosecuted in the district he mailed the porn in or in the district the porn was received in. Prosecutors will chose the district they feel gives them the best chance for a conviction.
Now electronic distribution of information (emails, texts etc. are very much more complicated. and much has to do with how the electronic data is routed. I don't begin to profess to understand all the ins and outs.
At any rate a crime investigated by a local US Attorney would have to use the FBI for leg work. I believe. The DOJ has all the attorneys who are available to actively conduct investigations. That's why the need for a special counsel.

(03-31-2018 12:17 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 12:11 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Not so sure that's Huber's role. The article I read said Huber is to look into the matters congress has expressed concern about, then recommend or not a special counsel, if justified.
While he may conduct criminal investigations, they would be limited to possible violations occurring within his district. Some federal statutes have been interpreted very liberally (sorry guys) by the courts to say a crime can be investigated in the district it began in and thru any districts it was carried out in. So a child pornographer can be prosecuted in the district he mailed the porn in or in the district the porn was received in. Prosecutors will chose the district they feel gives them the best chance for a conviction.
Now electronic distribution of information (emails, texts etc. are very much more complicated. and much has to do with how the electronic data is routed. I don't begin to profess to understand all the ins and outs.
At any rate a crime investigated by a local US Attorney would have to use the FBI for leg work. I believe. The DOJ has all the attorneys who are available to actively conduct investigations. That's why the need for a special counsel.

I'd just like someone who's supposed to know this sort of stuff explain to me how it's okay for the target of an FBI investigation to be interviewed off-the-record, no notes taken, nor recordings, attorneys present, attorneys already having been granted immunity, evidence destroyed, etc, versus another target who is interviewed while not even knowing he's the target of an investigation. That kinda bullshyte.

It bothers me for some reason.

(03-31-2018 02:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  You saying Flynn was mirandized but didn’t know the “interview” was actually an investigation? A 10 year old would know that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-31-2018 03:28 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 02:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  You saying Flynn was mirandized but didn’t know the “interview” was actually an investigation? A 10 year old would know that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't have total recall of all the events that have transpired around this investigation. You seem to however. Fill me in, what exactly are you talking about.
Of course if he was read his rights he would know something was up.
You have to understand that sometimes targets start out as witnesses. As events unfold that can change. He may not have been mirandized at first but eventually was. If there was a procedural error by the investigators, believe me his attorney would have been all over it and at the least it would be grounds for an appeal. So far crickets from his camp. Why?

Quote:So far crickets from his camp. Why?

(03-31-2018 04:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 03:28 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 02:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  You saying Flynn was mirandized but didn’t know the “interview” was actually an investigation? A 10 year old would know that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't have total recall of all the events that have transpired around this investigation. You seem to however. Fill me in, what exactly are you talking about.
Of course if he was read his rights he would know something was up.
You have to understand that sometimes targets start out as witnesses. As events unfold that can change. He may not have been mirandized at first but eventually was. If there was a procedural error by the investigators, believe me his attorney would have been all over it and at the least it would be grounds for an appeal. So far crickets from his camp. Why?

Here's what I've read about the events that unfolded in the two cases I mentioned.

Peter Strzok and other FBI agents met with Flynn one day to discuss the issue of security clearances for him and his employees. The next day, Andrew McCabe called him personally and asked if those same agents could visit him in his office. Figuring it was a continuation of the security clearance issue, he agreed. Flynn informed no one at the White House, not even the White House lawyers who would certainly want to sit in on an initial meeting with the FBI and a White House target of an investigation.

The info is out there OD if you'd care to read about it in more detail.

As for Cankles, the details I laid out have been out there for a long while......actually those details, and many more odd occurrances surrounding the investigation of her actions on the server. And she was most definitely the target of that investigation.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Neither of us know what was really said in either of those meetings. That's the problem. The events in question are completely open to interpretation.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Investigators are given a great deal of leeway in terms of being deceptive and using subterfuge in dealing with people they believe may not otherwise be forthcoming.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I have absolutely no idea what was said in those 2 meetings, Flynn himself could have said they were questioning him about security clearances as cover for himself so the Donald didn't know he was a target and likely to spill the beans on Trump. Who knows? maybe someday it'll all come out.'

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I do believe this as a certainty. If Flynn was a target, he was told his rights. No way in hell the FBI doesn't cover their ass in such a fundamental procedure.
If they read him his rights the first day, you are free to come to whatever conclusion you want about why Flynn did not tell his boss.

(03-31-2018 12:11 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Not so sure that's Huber's role. The article I read said Huber is to look into the matters congress has expressed concern about, then recommend or not a special counsel, if justified.
While he may conduct criminal investigations, they would be limited to possible violations occurring within his district. Some federal statutes have been interpreted very liberally (sorry guys) by the courts to say a crime can be investigated in the district it began in and thru any districts it was carried out in. So a child pornographer can be prosecuted in the district he mailed the porn in or in the district the porn was received in. Prosecutors will chose the district they feel gives them the best chance for a conviction.
Now electronic distribution of information (emails, texts etc. are very much more complicated. and much has to do with how the electronic data is routed. I don't begin to profess to understand all the ins and outs.
At any rate a crime investigated by a local US Attorney would have to use the FBI for leg work. I believe. The DOJ has all the attorneys who are available to actively conduct investigations. That's why the need for a special counsel.

(03-31-2018 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Pure lunacy

(03-31-2018 09:24 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Imo, the FBI has become an enemy of the Republic.

(03-31-2018 06:39 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Neither of us know what was really said in either of those meetings. That's the problem. The events in question are completely open to interpretation.

I haven't claimed I know what was said in either of those meetings. I've repeated what I've read by otherwise reputable jounalists like Byron York, who I don't believe would put their asses on the line making up wild shyte as they go. One thing I do know is that I've been a lot more interested in what the FBI was doing than you, and the more I learn, the more concerned I am about their actions and motives.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Investigators are given a great deal of leeway in terms of being deceptive and using subterfuge in dealing with people they believe may not otherwise be forthcoming.

Now you've morphed from, the FBI would inform any target of his miranda rights, to this? The interviewed him about his conversations with a Ruski. Though the FBI agents themselves told the boss they didn't feel he was being evasive with his answers, the FBI decided to lean on him anyway.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I have absolutely no idea what was said in those 2 meetings, Flynn himself could have said they were questioning him about security clearances as cover for himself so the Donald didn't know he was a target and likely to spill the beans on Trump. Who knows? maybe someday it'll all come out.'

You appear to approach this entire subject as many do, "the FBI was in charge and I trust the FBI". That's fine, that's your right. I don't trust them. And again, the more I dig and read about what all transpired, the more the entire thing stinks.

Have you read about the Bleach Bit guy OD? Claimed to FBI investigators he didn't erase anything on Clinton's servers. We later learn he did so AFTER congress supoened all those records. Once given immunity, yeah, that's right, immunity, he suddenly remembers erasing thousands of files but can't recall if anyone told him to do so. LOL You think that asshat was charged with a crime?

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I do believe this as a certainty. If Flynn was a target, he was told his rights. No way in hell the FBI doesn't cover their ass in such a fundamental procedure.
If they read him his rights the first day, you are free to come to whatever conclusion you want about why Flynn did not tell his boss.

Here, I believe you are just wrong. I have read no where that Flynn was ever advised that he was the target of an investigation or read his miranda rights when the FBI interviewed him about his conversations with the Russian diplomat. From what I understand, they found discrepencies in his testimony, and though minor, used that to charge him lying to the FBI.

In the end, if it looks like a witch hunt, walks like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, I'm inclined to believe it's a witch hunt. McCabe will be front and center in the IG's report. McCabe had a long-running hard-on for Flynn. I believe the truth will eventually come out......much of it already has in drips and drabs. Partisans just refuse to accept it.