“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”
I wish this is how it worked for all crimes for everybody.
"Sure, I may have committed a few felonies, but nobody got killed."
Next week's headline: "AMI Secret Files Indicate Trump May Have Robbed, Killed People"
I read elsewhere that the fact that AMI cut a deal isn't getting the attention it probably should, because it wasn't just Pecker that got immunity, it was the corporation of AMI itself which implies that they were going to indict the corporation otherwise, which implies that the corporation not only acted in its official capacity which it did through Pecker as CEO, but it also did so for the benefit of the corporation and benefit is the key word there, because a tabloid doing catch and kill on damaging stories on Trump, and then Trump paying them back for it wouldn't count as a benefit. It would count as a reimbursement. So there is an unknown benefit to AMI from the Trumps personally or the Trump Organization out there, that would be worthy enough for an indictment.
Can any of our more adept legal peoples tell me if this is on point?
+9
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”
I wish this is how it worked for all crimes for everybody.
"Sure, I may have committed a few felonies, but nobody got killed."
Rudy "Broken Windows" Giuliani, everybody.
There's a closed hearing for a sealed grand jury case going on today that is probably Mueller-related. They're being very secretive about it and have sealed not just the courtroom but the whole floor. Buzzfeed reporter:
“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”
I wish this is how it worked for all crimes for everybody.
"Sure, I may have committed a few felonies, but nobody got killed."
This is particularly disgusting to me because I know that many districts across America will (racistly) imply that you cannot vote if you have unpaid parking tickets as a way to dissuade voter turnout. Which is, in fact, a lie.
It’s the GOP all over: Use some stupid crap as a weapon against your political opponents and then turn around and hypocritically trivialize it when it hits close to home. I find this example particularly vile because he’s using it as throwaway example while others in his political party have tried to use it to depreciate the rights of legitimate citizens from voting.
God I fucking hate these people.
(My source is Al Franken’s Lying Liars book from many years ago. His book was sourcing fliers from many districts during Bush’s presidential campaign, which the book dissected.)
There is apparently quite the gathering crowd there trying to find out who this person is. But if they sealed off the whole damn floor? Today could be quite the day.
Carrie Johnson of NPR: 15+ reporters are milling around outside DC federal appeals courtroom trying to determine who’s involved in a mystery case that somehow relates to the Mueller Russia probe.
There is apparently quite the gathering crowd there trying to find out who this person is. But if they sealed off the whole damn floor? Today could be quite the day.
Carrie Johnson of NPR: 15+ reporters are milling around outside DC federal appeals courtroom trying to determine who’s involved in a mystery case that somehow relates to the Mueller Russia probe.
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
Yeah, as fun as this is, it's absolutely correct. Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. Having the media subvert that rule by conducting surveillance on a courtroom is not cool.
+75
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
There is apparently quite the gathering crowd there trying to find out who this person is. But if they sealed off the whole damn floor? Today could be quite the day.
Carrie Johnson of NPR: 15+ reporters are milling around outside DC federal appeals courtroom trying to determine who’s involved in a mystery case that somehow relates to the Mueller Russia probe.
This is definitely one of those moments where the press needs to know to back off to protect the case at hand.
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
I am 100% in support of freedom of the press.
There are very good reasons that certain parts of the criminal justice process are done in secret. Exploiting a logistical loophole to destroy that secrecy can compromise the integrity of the process and derail an investigation.
Just because a journalist can access and publish secret information doesn't mean that they should.
+47
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
The only ones left are Kushner, Trump, Trump, and Trump Jr.
There's no telling with this case. It could be someone we've never heard of before or it could be a known person that we previously had no idea they were as connected to all of this as they were.
This is definitely one of those moments where the press needs to know to back off to protect the case at hand.
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
Helping criminals sabotage a case that is neck deep in matters of national security and involves the President just so you can have something flashy to put on TV on a Friday night is not what I'd call an aspect of journalistic integrity.
+24
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
This is definitely one of those moments where the press needs to know to back off to protect the case at hand.
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
I'm saying to show some discretion. Just because the press learns something doesn't mean it should be published. They're after scoops without considering the damage it could do.
This is definitely one of those moments where the press needs to know to back off to protect the case at hand.
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
I'm saying to show some discretion. Just because the press learns something doesn't mean it should be published. They're after scoops without considering the damage it could do.
Keeping in mind a big part of why we're here in the press sat on the dossier
There is apparently quite the gathering crowd there trying to find out who this person is. But if they sealed off the whole damn floor? Today could be quite the day.
Carrie Johnson of NPR: 15+ reporters are milling around outside DC federal appeals courtroom trying to determine who’s involved in a mystery case that somehow relates to the Mueller Russia probe.
Turns out it's the holiday party for Mueller and his team. There's gonna be cake and a gift swap and everything.
:whistle: Mueller baby
indict Trump’s son and son-in-law too
please do
I’ll wait up and then cheer
Mueller baby
and hurry to the courtroom tonight! :whistle:
This is definitely one of those moments where the press needs to know to back off to protect the case at hand.
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
I'm saying to show some discretion. Just because the press learns something doesn't mean it should be published. They're after scoops without considering the damage it could do.
Keeping in mind a big part of why we're here in the press sat on the dossier
And also we know about it because they reported on the Trump tower meeting.
Oh boy is it ever a massive minuscule detail whether he said "It was not a big crime" or "It was not a big crime".
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
Oh boy is it ever a massive minuscule detail whether he said "It was not a big crime" or "It was not a big crime".
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
The difference is that 'it NOT being a big crime' leaves the possibility of it not being a crime at all, while 'it not being a BIG crime' says yes it is 100% a crime.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
The filing also quotes then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe — a lightning rod for critics of the FBI — saying he told Flynn that getting a lawyer would complicate and prolong the talks and force McCabe to involve the Justice Department.
The weird thing here is that the usual goto example of police tactics, Law and Order, rarely (if ever) has the cops say anything like this. They just go straight to the interrogation without a lawyer present to speed up the narrative. But, I'm pretty sure cops say this sort of thing for real because lots of people are stupid and it occasionally works. Hence, don't talk to cops without a lawyer!
Experts, though, say there is almost nothing unusual, illegal or even unethical about how Flynn was treated. There is no requirement that investigators inform subjects who aren’t in custody that they need a lawyer or that lying is illegal. And former federal prosecutor Patrick Cotter said it was the treatment van der Zwaan and Papadopoulos got that was unorthodox — not Flynn’s.
“In the vast majority of such noncustodial interviews of which I am aware — and there are probably hundreds I’ve encountered in my career — there is no explicit warning at all,” Cotter said. “So Flynn not getting a special warning is not in any sense out of the ordinary.”
David Moran, a criminal procedure expert at the University of Michigan who runs the Michigan Innocence Clinic, also said Flynn’s treatment is completely par for course. The famous Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, requires law enforcement to inform those in custody of their rights, but not people such as Flynn who weren’t in custody.
“The tactic of telling a subject not in custody that he or she doesn’t need an attorney present during an interview may be standard, but whether it is savory is a matter of opinion,” Moran said. “Still, it strikes me as odd for a tactic that is used every day with suspected criminals of every description to come under fire only when used against a highly sophisticated, extremely well-connected defendant.”
Oh boy is it ever a massive minuscule detail whether he said "It was not a big crime" or "It was not a big crime".
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
The difference is that 'it NOT being a big crime' leaves the possibility of it not being a crime at all, while 'it not being a BIG crime' says yes it is 100% a crime.
It's a bit immaterial coming from the man who 'cleaned up' New York City under a broken windows policy.
Oh boy is it ever a massive minuscule detail whether he said "It was not a big crime" or "It was not a big crime".
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
The difference is that 'it NOT being a big crime' leaves the possibility of it not being a crime at all, while 'it not being a BIG crime' says yes it is 100% a crime.
It's a bit immaterial coming from the man who 'cleaned up' New York City under a broken windows policy.
It’s all still consistent when you realize “broken windows policy” means “terrorize poor and minorities with unnecessary and brutal police tactics while ignoring crime committed by rich people”
Oh boy is it ever a massive minuscule detail whether he said "It was not a big crime" or "It was not a big crime".
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
The difference is that 'it NOT being a big crime' leaves the possibility of it not being a crime at all, while 'it not being a BIG crime' says yes it is 100% a crime.
It's a bit immaterial coming from the man who 'cleaned up' New York City under a broken windows policy.
It’s all still consistent when you realize “broken windows policy” means “terrorize poor and minorities with unnecessary and brutal police tactics while ignoring crime committed by rich people”
I know that. You know that. Most of us here know that.
But, the publicly reported reason for it was 'no crime is too small'. So you hammer and hammer and hammer with it until he/they admit they're full of shit now, or admit what broken windows really meant.
And when you say something is not a big thing, you're trying to say that it is a small thing. But it's still a thing. It does not leave the possibility that it isn't a thing at all.
It’s all still consistent when you realize “broken windows policy” means “terrorize poor and minorities with unnecessary and brutal police tactics while ignoring crime committed by rich people”
New York City cops are in a fight against their own police department. They say it’s under the control of a broken computer system that punishes cops who refuse to engage in racist, corrupt policing. The story of their fight, and the story of the grouchy idealist who originally built the machine they’re fighting.
New York City cops are in a fight against their own police department. They say it’s under the control of a broken computer system that punishes cops who refuse to engage in racist, corrupt policing. The story of their fight, and the story of the grouchy idealist who originally built the machine they’re fighting.
“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed… This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”
I wish this is how it worked for all crimes for everybody.
"Sure, I may have committed a few felonies, but nobody got killed."
This invites the easiest follow up.
"You were a prosecuted. Are you saying you never prosecuted anyone for non-violent offences or that you shouldn't have prosecuted anyone for non-violent offences?"
I assume it was not asked though.
New York City cops are in a fight against their own police department. They say it’s under the control of a broken computer system that punishes cops who refuse to engage in racist, corrupt policing. The story of their fight, and the story of the grouchy idealist who originally built the machine they’re fighting.
This sounds like a Judge Dredd plotline.
Sounds like one of Kevin J Anderson's ill advised Dune prequels.
I forget, is Vox considered reliable? Because they have a hell of an article up basically attesting that everything Trump has done since before Comey was even fired to attack the Russia Investigation in general, and then later the FBI, witnesses, Clinton, the DNC, Steele, Mueller. That all of this was done at the urging of guess who our crime loving super star, Paul Manafort. That Manafort since the beginning has been the one advising and urging Trump in ways he can undermine the investigation and undermine potential witnesses against him.
I forget, is Vox considered reliable? Because they have a hell of an article up basically attesting that everything Trump has done since before Comey was even fired to attack the Russia Investigation in general, and then later the FBI, witnesses, Clinton, the DNC, Steele, Mueller. That all of this was done at the urging of guess who our crime loving super star, Paul Manafort. That Manafort since the beginning has been the one advising and urging Trump in ways he can undermine the investigation and undermine potential witnesses against him.
Vox is reliable, yes. But at the same time that sounds like an opinion piece.
New York City cops are in a fight against their own police department. They say it’s under the control of a broken computer system that punishes cops who refuse to engage in racist, corrupt policing. The story of their fight, and the story of the grouchy idealist who originally built the machine they’re fighting.
I forget, is Vox considered reliable? Because they have a hell of an article up basically attesting that everything Trump has done since before Comey was even fired to attack the Russia Investigation in general, and then later the FBI, witnesses, Clinton, the DNC, Steele, Mueller. That all of this was done at the urging of guess who our crime loving super star, Paul Manafort. That Manafort since the beginning has been the one advising and urging Trump in ways he can undermine the investigation and undermine potential witnesses against him.
Vox is reliable, yes. But at the same time that sounds like an opinion piece.
Well it definitely does not read like one. They are pretty definitive on the matter.
Posts
On Fifth Avenue
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Can any of our more adept legal peoples tell me if this is on point?
Rudy "Broken Windows" Giuliani, everybody.
There's a closed hearing for a sealed grand jury case going on today that is probably Mueller-related. They're being very secretive about it and have sealed not just the courtroom but the whole floor. Buzzfeed reporter:
This is particularly disgusting to me because I know that many districts across America will (racistly) imply that you cannot vote if you have unpaid parking tickets as a way to dissuade voter turnout. Which is, in fact, a lie.
It’s the GOP all over: Use some stupid crap as a weapon against your political opponents and then turn around and hypocritically trivialize it when it hits close to home. I find this example particularly vile because he’s using it as throwaway example while others in his political party have tried to use it to depreciate the rights of legitimate citizens from voting.
God I fucking hate these people.
(My source is Al Franken’s Lying Liars book from many years ago. His book was sourcing fliers from many districts during Bush’s presidential campaign, which the book dissected.)
if not that we're not going to learn anything =p
maybe one lucky reporter will get a peak at a notable person or person(s) coming or going from the building.
Whoa this is big
They've closed off an entire floor!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's not the press' job to keep the government's secrets for them.
but it is their job to not screw up investigations because they crave ratings
Turns out it's the holiday party for Mueller and his team. There's gonna be cake and a gift swap and everything.
I am 100% in support of freedom of the press.
There are very good reasons that certain parts of the criminal justice process are done in secret. Exploiting a logistical loophole to destroy that secrecy can compromise the integrity of the process and derail an investigation.
Just because a journalist can access and publish secret information doesn't mean that they should.
Also not their job, but we're getting afield of the purpose of the thread here.
There's no telling with this case. It could be someone we've never heard of before or it could be a known person that we previously had no idea they were as connected to all of this as they were.
Helping criminals sabotage a case that is neck deep in matters of national security and involves the President just so you can have something flashy to put on TV on a Friday night is not what I'd call an aspect of journalistic integrity.
Keeping in mind a big part of why we're here in the press sat on the dossier
:whistle: Mueller baby
indict Trump’s son and son-in-law too
please do
I’ll wait up and then cheer
Mueller baby
and hurry to the courtroom tonight! :whistle:
And also we know about it because they reported on the Trump tower meeting.
I'm having difficulty parsing the difference. 'It was not a big crime' and 'It was not a big crime' carry the same weight and/or connotation. And 'It was not a big crime' suggests that it wasn't a crime at all, but the inclusion of the word 'big' contradicts that since it's unnecessary. Or the speaker is a total idiot or Rudy Giuliani.
What I'm getting is the the head of the Department of Cyber and Shitty Lawyering is admitting to crime and is trying his damnedest to minimise it away as akin to jaywalking or shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
Republicans commit mistakes and are really very sorry.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Oh, by the way, now the claim is that the FBI told him he didn't need a lawyer present.
The weird thing here is that the usual goto example of police tactics, Law and Order, rarely (if ever) has the cops say anything like this. They just go straight to the interrogation without a lawyer present to speed up the narrative. But, I'm pretty sure cops say this sort of thing for real because lots of people are stupid and it occasionally works. Hence, don't talk to cops without a lawyer!
Yup.
Stupid Watergate.
It was not a big crime.
It was not a big crime.
It's a bit immaterial coming from the man who 'cleaned up' New York City under a broken windows policy.
He’d kill us if he had the chance.
It’s all still consistent when you realize “broken windows policy” means “terrorize poor and minorities with unnecessary and brutal police tactics while ignoring crime committed by rich people”
I know that. You know that. Most of us here know that.
But, the publicly reported reason for it was 'no crime is too small'. So you hammer and hammer and hammer with it until he/they admit they're full of shit now, or admit what broken windows really meant.
And when you say something is not a big thing, you're trying to say that it is a small thing. But it's still a thing. It does not leave the possibility that it isn't a thing at all.
Reply All did a podcast about that recently:
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/127-the-crime-machine-part-i#episode-player
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/128-the-crime-machine-part-ii#episode-player
This sounds like a Judge Dredd plotline.
This invites the easiest follow up.
"You were a prosecuted. Are you saying you never prosecuted anyone for non-violent offences or that you shouldn't have prosecuted anyone for non-violent offences?"
I assume it was not asked though.
Sounds like one of Kevin J Anderson's ill advised Dune prequels.
Vox is reliable, yes. But at the same time that sounds like an opinion piece.
Judge Dredd would just shoot the machine.
Well it definitely does not read like one. They are pretty definitive on the matter.
Exclusive: Paul Manafort advised White House on how to attack and discredit investigation of President Trump
We now have details as to how the indicted former campaign manager worked with the president to undermine federal law enforcement.