I'm curious now Nook. What do you do for a living? (I apologize for asking so bluntly....appreciate whatever you care to share here.)
Currently I run a law firm I cofounded that has various branches in US and UK. Prior to that I was a civil attorney that represented defendants in federal and state court in both criminal and civil suits. Prior to that I was a federal prosecutor for years. During law school and then for two years after school I was on SA.
A couple points, first while it is true that the FBI almost never records interviews (it has happened but rarely) it isn’t necessarily treated at gospel truth as you can cross examine an FBI agent while under oath at trial. Also it would require two agents to lie under oath, which is a lot higher standard. If you are concerned about dishonesty, look at the DEA and local police officers and detectives. There is nothing unusual about a “he said”, and “she said” issue in a trial. It happens often and comes down to the credibility of the witnesses and sometimes circumstantial evidence.
I like you as a poster but posting comments from a mafia capo that readily flaunts his crimes in public and turned state witness isn’t really proving a point. Couple that with the fact that he is a notorious liar and lead to the death of several people that he strong armed and he isn’t really someone to speak on unfair FBI pressure. Still he is an interesting figure, and his rendition of his negotiations with the federal government is comical if nothing else. He came to the federal government offering evidence after getting in WAY over his head and having his own father put out a hit on him (which the SA had to warn him about).
Interesting. I knew his brother had turned state’s evidence but was under the impression Michael hadn't. I had read a Forbes article several years back making that claim, but perhaps the author was mistaken. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davids...g-earner-tells-all-in-las-vegas/#572425424cfd I also knew that Franzese's brother John Jr. had a contract put on him by his father but again was unaware Michael had. It certainly would have been easy to find the man as I understand he never entered witness protection. Regardless, he's still alive and reconciled with his father many, many years ago. How would you explain his ability to avoid a hit given all that? I respect your position here, and would probably normally agree with its relevance...but it's also true that MF hasn't been involved with organized crime for decades now. I'm as law and order a guy as you can get, but also recognize rehabilitation when I see it. As such, I don't automatically disregard his opinion as quickly. His past life remains checkered, but he also has quite a sustained period of walking the straight and narrow since you failed to mention. To me, that speaks pretty powerfully to the changes he's made. As to his distant past background as a mob capo or being a notorious liar...so what? Why would his character from almost 30 years ago be relevant to this discussion anyways? Do you think he's not being honest about his feelings about the negotiation tactics of the FBI/Justice Dept and their ability to pressure defendants? I certainly disagree that it disqualifies him from speaking about the FBI's and Justice Department's power to "persuade" defendants to buckle under enormous pressure as he's dealt with it on a personal level. Seems to me you'd be hard pressed to find someone with more first hand experience to that kind of pressure. I heard a lawyer on television recently declare that somewhere around 97% of Federal Cases are resolved by plea bargaining. Speaks volumes to me. Plea Bargains are negotiations, and the FBI plays for keeps. I don't see the problem with admitting this.
His little gas scam started making way too much money -- along with all the other things he was doing while becoming increasingly flamboyant. He is interesting though -- his interviews are always entertaining, but you have to understand that he loves to enhance his storytelling.
Stop framing this as a political witch hunt rather than what it is, which is law enforcement using aggressive tactics as their status quo and people will be more receptive to discuss these systemic law enforcement issues. The problem is there are politicians pretending that this is a unique situation that is only inspired through political bias rather then just standard operating procedure by the FBI. It's kinda sad to see a bunch of people care about law enforcement abuses only when a wealthy politician that is part of their tribe is a victim (Flynn might be a victim of aggressive tactics but he still did illegal acts). It's funny that there is a giant overlap of people who are outraged about aggressive law enforcement tactics with Flynn and people who defended cops interrogation tactics in situations such as the Central Park Five. The largest issue here should be obvious now given what you typed. Why didn't Bare care about the other 97% of Federal cases that used plea deals with probably countless examples of aggressive tactics? Why did Barr magically care about with Flynn? The FBI and most law enforcement agencies do needs reform. We can agree on that but we also have to address the other large problem that has a quicker and easier fix and that is the head of the Justice Department is doing political favors for the president. I don't think Hard magically started caring about aggressive interrogation tactics by the FBI. Ask Trump about aggressive law enforcement tactics. Does he give a ****? He literally told a group of law enforcement officers in a speech that they should slam the heads of detained individuals on squad cars to send a message. Why does he magically start caring about aggressive tactics with Flynn? Do you think it's politically motivated?
Trump should have just given Flynn a pardon. Obama gave James Cartwright, a 4 star General, a pardon for the same charge. Cartwright was thought to have given up classified material to an author and it was published in a book. FBI got him because he lied about the times and locations he met the author. Nobody batted an eye over that pardon.
That would look bad for Trump because it would admit there was something to pardon. Theyve got a gameplan to spin this as Donald Trumps hero soldier taken down by corrupt Deep State Obama operatives for trying to drain the swamp.
Our justice system is so flawed and corrupt. George Zimmerman. Gregory and Travis McMichael. Mike Flynn. These men should never have had charges brought against them.
I think almost all agree all but Flynn involve a hate crime (potentially). I know the post is tongue in cheek.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-biden-oval-office-meeting-on-january-5-was-key-to-entire-anti-trump-operation/https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-biden-oval-office-meeting-on-january-5-was-key-to-entire-anti-trump-operation I think this is the ‘bomb’ that the right wing media has been saying would drop when the Flynn information is releases by Barr. Pretty damning as it shows the level of involvement. Makes ‘can you do us a favor’ look like child’s play.
I disagree that the Ukrainian scandal was impeachable. As a matter of FACT. He was exonerated by the Senate. So, I've got that going for me.... If you don't understand or CARE what the article implies, rather factually. Then you're hiding in ignorance or indifference or bias. The idea that you don't think anything is wrong tells me a lot about. I suspect you're not alone. I expect it. Hypocrisy, bro. It doesn't anger me. I'm impressed with the whole execution of this 'operation', for lack of better words. Hats off to the Dems. It's just politics. Nothing to get emotional about. It sucks that the Dems didn't put up someone other than Biden. Someone who wasn't on the Obama team. I hope he pulls out so that if the Dems do win, there might be somebody who has more integrity. And yeah.... I do get the 'cat calling the kettle black' response. But it's what I've been saying for the last two years as all of these things materialize as truth. That is shady. That is politics. It's all horsesh!t on BOTH SIDES. So don't act like the Dems don't get their hands dirty. They are really good at it.
The Dems don't control judges and FBI agents. At no point in the Ukrainian extortion scheme was a neutral judge or federal investigators involved like it was for the Russian interference investigation. The Ukrainian scandal was 100% purely politically motivated with only political actors who bootlick for the president such as Rudy G. Comparing the two situations shows a complete lack of understanding of our our justice system works. Obama didn't even start the investigation. It was started organically by career prosectors and FBI agents, not political actors like with the Ukrainian scandal.
Lol....started organically??? The DNC paid Steele to develop what became the 'pee tape' dossier. It was deliberately leaked so the FBI could use the media's article as a second source on the original FISA warrant. Whatever... I'm waisting my time.
This article takes dates, and facts about meetings and interjects words like “plot” etc. to insinuate motives. The reality though is that this was their job at the time. What if I told you that it was discovered with the CIA that Biden had a letter of intent for a business deal with the Republic of China for millions of dollars while China at the same time was interfering with the Nov election on Biden’s behalf and the FBI opened a counter intelligence investigation of Biden? Then what if I told you that in January 2021 before the inauguration, Trump met with Pence, Haspel, and Wray in the Oval Office to discuss the investigation? What would you tell me about that meeting? Would you get worked up thinking that Trump was being unfair to Biden? No you wouldn’t... you would tell me that the substance of Biden and China’s activities are the main focus here and Trump is just doing his job. And what I would tell you is that Trump is obviously scheming to hurt the Biden presidency but what Biden did was compromising to our democracy so the legit answer is for the political arm of the admin to be walled off the from the investigation. In the Obama case, I understand why they involved Obama and Biden at the time (they were respectable leaders with honor and integrity) but yes looking back retroactively hindsight has me thinking Comey, Rice, and others should have shielded Obama and Biden from the decision making process to avoid the inevitable “Obama plot” narrative that they had to know the Trump media would spin to detract from the substance of the investigation... which is what you have kinda been duped here into doing.
