Trump’s Toast: Knowing The Time Line

The Republican position used to try to save Trump from the toaster is that the allegation that he tried to squeeze Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy into making a public announcement about opening an investigation into the Biden’s and Ukraine’s interference into the U.S. 2016 presidential election that put Trump into office can’t be true because he restored military and other aid before any statement was issued.

Because the eventual goal doesn’t come about does not mean the goal was not intended. What must be examined is whether anything happened to cause the person to be unable to achieve the goal. Take the Pat Née example where he was sitting outside the bank with his weapons. The FBI descended on him and his cohorts to stop them. That doesn’t mean they didn’t plan to rob the bank.

In the Nee example Née learned just before the FBI interrupted their robbery the name of one of the guys involved in planning the heist. He immediately knew the jig was up because he knew that guy was an informant. Suppose Née learned that information the night before the planned robbery. He then said: “hey guys, if Charlie knows about our plans then the FBI knows, I’m suggesting we give up on the idea.” Née then leaves the gang and heads back to Southie. That doesn’t mean Née didn’t plan the robbery. It indicates that the plans had been discovered so it was best to call them off,

Criminal Pat Nee’s Thinking: A Mirror of Trump’s.

Pat  Nee had a funny feeling about the bank robbery he was about to pull off with some other guys. As they waited outside the bank for the right opportunity with the necessary firearms. Pat asked the name of the guy who had set it up. When he was told, a gloom descended on him.  He knew the guy was an FBI informant. With the gloom came car loads of FBI agents.

Pat  was arrested and brought to trial. He complained  that the robbery did not take place. He said: “No crime, no time!”  A few years later Pat stopped doing time.

I thought of Pat as I watched the Impeachment hearings. The allegation against Trump is that he withheld military and other aid for the purpose of squeezing the Ukrainian president Zelinsky into making a public statement on CNN  that he was investigating Joe Biden and his son. Biden is the one guy Trump fears running against.

The president  had all the intent in the world to withhold this aid and actually did it for a while without even at first notifying Ukraine which was fighting an invading Russian army and depended greatly on it. Then he let it go through when  the Whistles Blower, like the FBI with Nee, came along and blew a big hole in the plan.

Telling When A Person Lies Is An Exercise in Folly

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no way to tell when a person is lying without having other knowledge of facts surrounding the person’s statement. One of the great deficiencies in our judicial system is pretending that a judge or jury has that ability without that added material.
We see that every day in divorce proceedings where each side in most cases tell opposite stories of an incident that took place outside the view of others. One person is lying but how do you determine which one. In some cases you can’t; in others you can look at other circumstances to make a reasonable guess. But you can’t know for certain because even someone with a track record of lying could be telling the truth on that one occasion.
An example I often refer to is Boston federal district court judge Mark Wolf who heard Steve Flemmi testify and believed some of his testimony and not other parts. Did you ever pause to think what a mockery of justice that amounts to?
I understand the law regarding witnesses and the duty of a fact finder (judge or jury). One can believe all, a part, or none of a witness’s testimony. But step back and tell me why a fact finder should believe anything a lying witness testifies to? Doesn’t the witness take an oath to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” If the witness starts breaching his oath shouldn’t he be dismissed outright.
I’m not talking about white lies or non material lies like dissembling about one’s age but those that may affect the mind of the fact finder in making the correct decision.
Judge Wolf believed Flemmi when he identified his source in the State Police which was clearly a lie; he disbelieved him when he told him the source of a leak about the Lancaster Street operation. There Flemmi was correct in telling of it.
Had Wolf considered other facts he may have come up with better guesses. Didn’t Wolf understand that Flemmi was not about to disclose his true source who may have been still around and helping him which was the case. Didn’t his antennas go up when he picked a dead guy?
As to the guy identified as the leak, was Wolf happy to not believe that because he was a former colleague of Wolf”s. He may not have been able to conceive him doing it. Most likely though Wolf did not know how the guy was in a jam at the time. He really had no choice but to subvert the other investigation.
Why then are juries with no practice in discerning lies from the truth given that responsibility when experienced judges can’t do it? Is it based on the idea that six or twelve minds are better than one; or is it simply we don’t know what else to do so we engage in a fiction.
I often thought how frightening it must be to have twelve total strangers who really know nothing about you to sit in judgment on you. Not only that you really know nothing about them. Add to that your knowledge that the witness against you is lying that you were present when you weren’t. To compound it the witness is a life long criminal who lies about everything so lying is second nature to him.
If we can’t tell when a witness lies shouldn’t we not let people who have led criminal lives not testify? How can the United States or a state vouch for such a person? Isn’t there some red line that can’t be crossed?
How bad has it become? John Martorano testified against FBI agent John Connolly who he never met giving total hearsay testimony. He’d say “I heard” or “ someone said”. There is no way to cross-examine hearsay statements. This is wrong.

Gangsters Lie: Why Are People Asked To Believe Them?

There is an abundant number of tall tales told by Gangsters that upon cursory analysis are beyond belief but are accepted as gospel by prosecutors and writers. What is tragic is that they act upon these falsehoods or repeat them giving them a veneer of credence. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Boston media and federal prosecutors office.

One that immediately comes to mind was the one prosecutor John Durham (familiar name lately) put forth. He had John Martorano testify that Whitey told him and others that FBI agent John Connolly said that he would pass on information to Whitey because he owed his brother Bill a favor.

If there is one thing we know for sure it is Whitey never brought his brother’s name up at anytime. How do we know? Other gangsters closer to Whitey would certainly have testified to it. We also know because Martorano said Whitey knew he better not be giving information because they’d know about it – but they didn’t know their partner Flemmi had been giving info to FBI for ten years.

The Old Smoothies Might Buy It: I Don’t

You I received a comment the other day which read: ”The Rogue Agent theory was invented by Comey and Mueller. The Russian Collusion Hoax was invented by Comey and Mueller. The Boston Marathon Lie (The FBI didn’t know the Tsarnaevs) was invented by Comey and Mueller. Can anyone see a pattern?”

We are asked if we see a pattern. The first one I see is this is part of the idea the FBI and our intelligence agencies are corrupt and intent on undermining America (or at least Trump who often confuses himself with America.) Strange that after more than seventy years protecting us they suddenly changed when Trump got elected.

The second pattern I see is one of total wrongness when the facts are examined. The most obvious example of that is that even though the FBI had evidence that Trump’s campaign was being assisted by Russia, which I don’t think even the writer who commented doubts (or perhaps I’m wrong there) it never made public its knowledge. Rather it was held back at the insistence of Senators Mitch McGovern who knew it would hurt Trump’s chances. Mueller had nothing to do with the FBI at the time but Comey was its director. Had Comey wanted he certainly could have put it out but he didn’t. Rather than hurting Trump the FBI through its silence helped him.

FBI Agent John Connolly’s Death Sentence; the Murderers Walk Free With Government Money

There is little doubt in my mind that John Connolly is wrongfully imprisoned. I spent the last three days spelling out the absurdity of the Florida Appeals court decision that keeps him there.  There are so many other factors that likewise must be considered  in his case.

I do recognize the futility at banging this drum especially now since the Department of Justice is headed by William Barr who has appointed John Durham as his hatchet man to go back and try to exonerate Russia from its involvement in Trump’s election. Durham is the prosecutor who tried the Connolly case so the chances of his admitting that Connolly is imprisoned wrongly or that any Trump appointed judge finding that are next to zero.

Connolly will die in prison. He has been there since 2002. Why go on banging my head against the wall. He’s not related to me although we have the same last name; nor was I ever friendly with him although I met with him a half-dozen times in our official capacities – he as an FBI agent, me as a state prosecutor.

In Florida Almost Every Felony Is Committed With A Weapon or Firearm

This is the third in a series examining the abominable decision by Judge Rothenberg and four other Florida Appeal Court judges in the case of retired FBI Agent John Connolly, The two prior were written on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.  The first article dealt with the absurdity of saying a murder was ongoing three weeks before it was committed; the second considered how these judges interpreted a Florida statute intended to discourage firearms or weapons at a felony as encouraging them.

Today I discuss another absurd result that comes out of the Connolly ruling. If applied in the manner the decision in the Connolly case was applied. It would make just about every felony in Florida subject to the increased penalty. The statute in question provides: ” . . .whenever a person is charged with a felony, . . .  and during the commission of such a felony the defendant carries, displays, uses, threatens, or attempt to use any weapon or firearm, . . . the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified . . . . “

A Florida Appeals Court Encourages People to Be Armed With Weapons When Committing Felonies

Yesterday I wrote about how a Florida Appeals Court decision will result in former FBI Agent John Connolly dying in prison. I called the decision absurd in part because it held a murder was ongoing three weeks before it took place. It was being committed over a three-week time even though it was a discrete event that actually took place in a minute or two.

The facts most favorable to the state are simple. John Callahan was murdered by Martorano on July 31, 1982. Martorano said he murdered Callahan because three weeks before the murder Connolly passed word to others that the FBI was looking for Callahan. Connolly said if he cooperated he would be able to implicate Martorano and others in a murder committed by Martorano in Oklahoma. He said Martorano should handle it. At the time he met the others in Boston he was wearing his FBI gun.

The issue is whether wearing the gun in Boston three weeks before the murder in Florida Connolly was carrying a gun during the commission of the murder. The Florida court stated Connolly: ” carried during the commission of the murder, and that the crime of second degree murder was ongoing.”