What a ridiculous thing to say.
Posted on 08/21/2020 6:58:50 PM PDT by ameribbean expat
By Eric Tucker - Associated Press - Updated: 9:51 p.m. on Friday, August 21, 2020 WASHINGTON — Former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed Friday by U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team as part of its inquiry into the investigators and intelligence officials behind the 2016 Russia election interference probe.
The interview took place at CIA headquarters and lasted for eight hours, said Nick Shapiro, Brennan’s former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser.
“Brennan was informed by Mr. Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review,” Shapiro said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.washingtontimes.com ...
come on, don’t you remember? Trump wasn’t the target of an investigation either.
I guess he doesn’t care that the FBI and the rule of law’s reputation will be destroyed and no one will ever trust them again.
Those that categorically state there will be no military tribunals are suffering from normalcy bias. The tribunals are the remedy when the civilian courts are unable to function. If the enemy are able to create the level of chaos they are promising, then the military tribunals become a much more clear and present prospect.
Check the form they had Clinesmith sign. It wasn’t the standard cooperation form that requires him to provide material evidence of crimes others have committed.
See “The Conservative Treehouse” for the wording of this.
No, Brennanskie is in no danger.
And besides, Comey (i.e., Scrotumtoter) was the one who lied in telling Trump this. Our side plays by the rules, remember?
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Get over yourself. I can "the ugly reality" without the exact same tire post on every damn thread.
And there is historical precedent-— the Lincoln Assassination Commission, and also the trial by another all military judiciary— the trial of the last commandant of the CSA’s Andersonville Prison (who was a Swiss citizen, btw— thereby showing that military tribunals can adjudicate anyone, in the correct legal setting).
Also see: Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s exchanges under questions from Lindsey Graham at his Senate Judiciary Committee qualification/approval convening. We are...at War, still to this day, all the way from 2001 at a minimum.
How so?
You realize he was not Mirandized, meaning nothing he said can be introduced in court.
BTW Clinesmith likewise got a sweetheart deal where he was NOT required to provide incriminating evidence against anyone.
Yeah, ol Barrstool is rackin’ em up.
Second, information gained during an interview, when the person wasn't Mirandized when the subject wasn't they subject of the investigation is not disqualified from evidence.
Its already been stated by Barr that this is a criminal investigation.
Thirdly, you have no idea what evidence Clinesmith provided or will provide.
You sure act like you know a lot that you can't possibly know.
Yes, old 'Barrstool' is racking them up. And the best is yet to come.
Too bad you're left behind with the grovelling naysayers, Mister insider. Stop saying ridiculous things that you could have no possible way of knowing. Its embarrassing.
Exactly! His word is worth less than gum on the bottom of a shoe.
Yep, if Shapiro said it it’s worth nothing.
But these days we can’t even be sure he said anything to anyone.
You have no idea what other evidence they have against the mongoloid baby.
If they have everything that is already in the public domain, that's enough. Surely they have more than that. His testimony is not necessary to convict if they can convict without it.
Bottom line is, he submitted to 8 hours of questioning without asserting his 5th amendment rights (that we know of).
So, yea.
“That’s because Brennan, among the other SpyGate plotters, will be tried by a military tribunal.”
Reminds me of when I used to watch “The Closer” on TV. The cop, Brenda, would say, “I promise you that the City Of Los Angeles has no interest in prosecuting you.” So the perp would confess. Immediately, the FBI walks in the room and cuffs the perp.
You struck out on all three.
There are very specific law enforcement terms. An “interview” distinctly means the subject is not read Miranda rights. That is why it is not an “interrogation” of a “suspect.” The FBI, not me, called this an “interview.” I don’t have to be in the room.
Second, it doesn’t matter what he said in an unsworn interview. He can later change his story with no penalty. That’s why you Mirandize them and get them in a position to commit perjury.
Third, yes, I do know they don’t have anything from Clinesmith because if you read the plea agreement, they left out the specific section present in other plea agreements that commits the self-confessed criminal to specific assistance. For example, try reading FLYNN’S plea agreement. You will see he has very specific areas where he was supposed to assist in the investigation. Quite clear. There wasn’t a one of these in the Clinesmith plea.
Now, instead of whining to me, read “The Conservative Treehouse, which has had a very good series on this WITH THE DOCUMENTS that show Clinesmith won’t be giving up anyone.
Larry, you are as smart as a whip, but I don't see any Miranda qualifier in this: Legal matters surrounding lying to a Federal Agent.
Note three things: One, the Federal Agent need not be FBI. Any Federal Agent will do.
Second, this: "False statements can be spoken or written and do not have to be made under oath to violate the law."
Third: Note this text: "Lying by itself is not illegal, including lying to a federal agent. A statement must be “materially” false to be illegal. A statement is material if it has a “natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing” the agent the statement is made to."
Any false statement material to the case and offered voluntarily, regardless of any oath, violates 18 USC Section 1001.
I never pursued a legal career, I felt computers were more of my forte and far more lucrative. However, I was prepping to go to law school, and took quite a few classes in law in preparation for that. I'm not a lawyer, but I do have an innate sense of the law.
I’m going by what the legal guys on Twit tell me. Robert Barnes, for example, says if Brennanskie was a target, they would have Miranda-ized him.
I think if you look at how loose the FBI was with Flynn, it would be institutional suicide to use that third point with “flexibility.” In other words, after Flynn, if they are caught not doing EVERYTHING by the book, there won’t be a DOJ.
What they said, struck me as wrong, so I did my homework. From my interpretation of the actual law, and the concurring opinions of several prominent law firms, Mirandizing is not necessary. Only the presumption that the false statement is intended to influence the agent.... which is a pretty broad legal basis on which to arrest and prosecute upon.
Yea, you kinda do. The requirement to Mirandize comes when the interview/interrogation comes with the possibility that it may lead to criminal charges. It has nothing to do with the difference between an interrogation and an interview. You are totally wrong about that. I don't know where you would come up with a statement like that.
Read this and tell me if either one (interrogation/interview) requires Miranda absent the subject being a "target", suspect, or person of interest.
Police Interviews versus Interrogation: ‘Fairbanks Four’ Case Illustrates Important Distinction
(excerpt)
“Interrogation” and “interview” are not synonyms; they have very different purposes and employ very different tactics. Interviews are used in an investigation to gather information — objective facts — by asking open-ended questions and allowing the witness to supply the evidence. Police conduct interviews when they don’t yet know the answers to the questions they are asking.
At any time during the course of Brennon's 'interview', he could have gone from not being a 'target' to being a 'target' based on what he said and comparing it to evidence already in hand. Proper police work would have been to Mirandize him at that time, though I'm not saying they necessarily did.
Interrogations, on the other hand, are designed to extract confessions where police already have other concrete evidence connecting the suspect to the crime. Most officers are trained in specific interrogation techniques that are intended to be used against seasoned adult criminals. Because interrogations are so coercive, there’s a danger in using them, rather than an investigation, to solve a crime: They can produce false confessions that blind officers to other objective evidence.
So, in conclusion, unless you were in the room, you have no idea what was said or whether he was Mirandized at any point, despite being told previously that he wasn't a 'target' (if in fact he was).
Second, it doesn’t matter what he said in an unsworn interview. He can later change his story with no penalty. That’s why you Mirandize them and get them in a position to commit perjury.
Miranda has nothing to do with committing perjury. Being under oath does. Was he under oath? And we know that lying to the FBI is a felony. Does the same hold true for a U.S. Attorney? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Third, yes, I do know they don’t have anything from Clinesmith
You know no such thing.
because if you read the plea agreement, they left out the specific section present in other plea agreements that commits the self-confessed criminal to specific assistance. For example, try reading FLYNN’S plea agreement. You will see he has very specific areas where he was supposed to assist in the investigation. Quite clear. There wasn’t a one of these in the Clinesmith plea.
Tell me. Is there a chance they got what they needed from Clinesmith to send the investigation down other avenues? Do you know that he didn't make a deal where he gave up information without committing to testify? Again, you have no idea on the details of the deal, if any, that was made or the level of cooperation Clinesmith offered. Any written agreement like you describe is intended to insure ongoing cooperation and testimony in court.
Now, instead of whining to me, read “The Conservative Treehouse, which has had a very good series on this WITH THE DOCUMENTS that show Clinesmith won’t be giving up anyone.
Seems to me the only whining going on here is you screeching that 'Barstool Bob' ain't doing a proper job and nobody's gonna be held to account. That sounds like whining to me.
And Conservative Treehouse is doing exactly what you are doing. Guessing.
I deal in facts, sir. Thank you for your time.
Oh, try this article on for size. Conservative Treehouse isn't the only publication with an opinion.
John Brennan Was Put in a Perjury Trap Yesterday — A Completely Legitimate One
The article questions the veracity of the statement tht Brennan was not a target. And here's an interesting point. Why was the interview held at the CIA building?
(excerpt)
If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” v. “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that “false statement” crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court.
+1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.