Crime Comey Admits to Ignoring Proper Protocol

[Philo-Publius]

Comey is a real POS it makes you think what other unethical things he did. His handling of the Clinton email investigation was a dumpster fire and I'm not talking about if she should of been charged with anything aspect more of his public handling of it and who he had as investigators.

Trump's next Attorney General should fire Mueller. A U.S. President cannot commit obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers. Mueller is a crook desperately trying to frame Trump for anything he can, so that Mueller can look out for his Marxist friends in the Democrat party.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Trump's next Attorney General should fire Mueller. A U.S. President cannot commit obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers. Mueller is a crook desperately trying to frame Trump for anything he can, so that Mueller can look out for his Marxist friends in the Democrat party.

Damn, you are DESPERATE!!!

Pray tell, why did the deep state kill Kennedy?

 

[Philo-Publius]

Damn, you are DESPERATE!!!

Pray tell, why did the deep state kill Kennedy?

I would argue that Mueller is desperate.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Trump's next Attorney General should fire Mueller. A U.S. President cannot commit obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers. Mueller is a crook desperately trying to frame Trump for anything he can, so that Mueller can look out for his Marxist friends in the Democrat party.

Marxists Mueller and Kerry running the long con for 40 years lol

 

[sickc0d3r]

I'd call it unethical, but definitely not unconstitutional. There is no requirement that investigators inform an interviewee that lying to them is illegal.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I'd call it unethical, but definitely not unconstitutional. There is no requirement that investigators inform an interviewee that lying to them is illegal.

Didn’t McCabe tell him not to bother bringing his attorney though? That could be a problem.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Marxists Mueller and Kerry running the long con for 40 years lol

40 years? No, the "con" has been since maybe 2016. The friendship and bond that makes the con worth it has existed for 40 years.

 

[vengeful]

Didn’t McCabe tell him not to bother bringing his attorney though? That could be a problem.

Nothing illegal or unethical about that either. FBI agents aren't there to help people they're interviewing avoid questions. That's not their jobs.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Didn’t McCabe tell him not to bother bringing his attorney though? That could be a problem.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...04878e-ffdd-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html

"McCabe’s memo describes how he called Flynn in January and told the national security adviser that because of recent media coverage of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, FBI Director James B. Comey concluded that Flynn should sit down with two FBI agents.

Flynn, according to McCabe’s memo, explained he had been trying to “build relationships” with the Russians.

Flynn offered to meet with the agents that day — ultimately agreeing to an interview in his office at the White House. McCabe wrote that he told Flynn that if he wanted to involve anyone else in the conversation — like the White House Counsel’s Office — McCabe would have to involve the Justice Department.

Flynn, however, agreed to be interviewed alone"

And this part in particular I like lol

“A sitting national security adviser, former head of an intelligence agency, retired lieutenant general, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents,” the prosecutors wrote.

 

[andnowweknow]

Trump fired Comey.

Special Counsel is a thing.

No amount of complaining will undo this.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Didn’t McCabe tell him not to bother bringing his attorney though? That could be a problem.

It sounds like they told him having a lawyer present would "complicate things", but ultimately it was still Flynn's decision and he agreed to the interview and lied to them. That's all on him, imo. Seems unethical to me to circumvent protocol (probably to put the interviewee at ease with an informal setting, which favors them), but I don't think investigators have to explain that lying can get you in trouble or that a lawyer is a good idea unless they take you into custody.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Nothing illegal or unethical about that either. FBI agents aren't there to help people they're interviewing avoid questions. That's not their jobs.

Not so much that it isn’t “helping” him. More that it could be construed as intentionally “hurting” him. If I’m going to interview a suspect and he asks if he should bring an attorney and I tell him not to then charge him based on something I get him to say in the interview, that’s not gonna play well in court generally - atleast from a jury optics standpoint if nothing else.

I just heard about it on the radio yesterday so not sure on the details but that seems a little iffy.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

It sounds like they told him having a lawyer present would "complicate things", but ultimately it was still Flynn's decision and he agreed to the interview and lied to them. That's all on him, imo. Seems unethical to me to circumvent protocol (probably to put the interviewee at ease with an informal setting, which favors them), but I don't think investigators have to explain that lying can get you in trouble or that a lawyer is a good idea unless they take you into custody.

I agree the final decision was Flynn’s and he should’ve known better but can still see it being a problem if he was persuaded to not bring an attorney by the people investigating him.

 

[vengeful]

Not so much that it isn’t “helping” him. More that it could be construed as intentionally “hurting” him. If I’m going to interview a suspect and he asks if he should bring an attorney and I tell him not to then charge him based on something I get him to say in the interview, that’s not gonna play well in court generally - atleast from a jury optics standpoint if nothing else.

I just heard about it on the radio yesterday so not sure on the details but that seems a little iffy.

He wasn't being interviewed as a suspect though and he wasn't the target of an investigation to my knowledge.


If you were interviewing a witness to a crime and the witness asked if he needed an attorney present and you said no, then later you found that the witness lied during that initial interview would that be a problem?

 

[Philo-Publius]

Nothing illegal or unethical about that either. FBI agents aren't there to help people they're interviewing avoid questions. That's not their jobs.

They had an obligation to make him aware he was at risk. For example, the purpose of Miranda rights to remind someone that they are at risk.

I cannot wait for the day that we live in a police state where all law enforcement can charge you with a crime for "lying" to them. It will make their jobs so much easier. And, I am sure none of the leftists in on this message board will have any problem with that.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I agree the final decision was Flynn’s and he should’ve known better but can still see it being a problem if he was persuaded to not bring an attorney by the people investigating him.

Maybe, but it won't be because the interview was unconstitutional is all I am saying.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

He wasn't being interviewed as a suspect though and he wasn't the target of an investigation to my knowledge.


If you were interviewing a witness to a crime and the witness asked if he needed an attorney present and you said no, then later you found that the witness lied during that initial interview would that be a problem?

If I wanted to charge him with a crime for any lying, in and of itself, possibly. Unless I said up front, “just so you know, if you lie you will be prosecuted for it” it could be viewed as soft walking him into a trap.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Maybe, but it won't be because the interview was unconstitutional is all I am saying.

Just saying I can see that argument being made.

If I interview another cop I don’t get to just not advise him of his rights and tell him not to bring an attorney before I interrogate him just because “he should’ve known that” if I know I’m going to charge him if he lies to me.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Double post

 

[sickc0d3r]

Just saying I can see that argument being made.

If I interview another cop I don’t get to just not advise him of his rights and tell him not to bring an attorney before I interrogate him just because “he should’ve known that.”

Pretty sure fbi agents don't have to inform everyone they interview of their rights or that lying to them is a bad thing unless they take them into custody. The terms of this interview were even discussed ahead of time with Flynn, which probably wouldn't happen for most of us. They can try to persuade people to talk to them and people can refuse. Flynn agreed to it and then lied, so he is dumb.