New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Flynn call transcript released...no bombshell for Dems...

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Then he lied to court, and he should go to jail for perjury, instead of lying to the FBI. Either way Flynn is a liar and felon.
So if he "lied in court" by "agreeing" with the prosecution's charge, and he didn't actually lie to the FBI (at least not in a criminal way), then the prosecution lied in court also. If you want to prosecute him for perjury, you have to charge the DOJ with perjury as well. You really didn't think that through, did you?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The fact is that FARA violations are a rarely prosecuted "crime." In fact, up until the "Russian Collusion" idiocy, only 7 cases had been filed since 1966. But I will grant you that it's a better tack than the silly "Logan Act" violations you were pushing before. However, the fact is that usually FARA vilators are made to pay a fine and file the correct paperwork. In this case they can probably deduct his fine from the settlement he's going to get for the DOJ's wrongful prosecution of him for "lying" to the FBI about a matter that was not a crime.
 

Mick

The Right is always right

Mick

The Right is always right
The fact is that FARA violations are a rarely prosecuted "crime." In fact, up until the "Russian Collusion" idiocy, only 7 cases had been filed since 1966. But I will grant you that it's a better tack than the silly "Logan Act" violations you were pushing before. However, the fact is that usually FARA vilators are made to pay a fine and file the correct paperwork. In this case they can probably deduct his fine from the settlement he's going to get for the DOJ's wrongful prosecution of him for "lying" to the FBI about a matter that was not a crime.
Don't use facts. He's got lies and conspiracies to propagate.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
And? Did you really just link a year old article written by a renowned Trump-hater and left wing conspiracist that goes by "5dollarFeminist" on twitter claiming Michael Flynn was "blowing up his plea deal" by fighting it? A deal since been thrown out.

Bwahahahaha. Lord, this gets better by the post.
Did you really just discount the article without reading it. Looks like it since you can't actually argue any point she raises.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The fact is that FARA violations are a rarely prosecuted "crime." In fact, up until the "Russian Collusion" idiocy, only 7 cases had been filed since 1966. But I will grant you that it's a better tack than the silly "Logan Act" violations you were pushing before. However, the fact is that usually FARA vilators are made to pay a fine and file the correct paperwork. In this case they can probably deduct his fine from the settlement he's going to get for the DOJ's wrongful prosecution of him for "lying" to the FBI about a matter that was not a crime.
He lied on the FARA application....oops.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
He lied on the FARA application....oops.
Another "crime" of not complying with federal regulatory overreach? Off with his head!

So he'll refile an accurate form and everybody heads to the bar for margaritas.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Did you really just discount the article without reading it. Looks like it since you can't actually argue any point she raises.
The entire premise was that Flynn was sabotaging himself by fighting the plea. Events since that article was written have proven this completely untrue. The misconduct turned up and the prosecution pulling charges proves otherwise. The article was written by a left wing activist. It's not real.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You think Mueller's 19 Trump-hating Democrats are going to prepare a form for him to sign that says he was coerced? Jesus Christ, can you even think for once?
You think Flynn is going to sign anything put in front of him? Is that you using your head?
 
So if he "lied in court" by "agreeing" with the prosecution's charge, and he didn't actually lie to the FBI (at least not in a criminal way), then the prosecution lied in court also. If you want to prosecute him for perjury, you have to charge the DOJ with perjury as well. You really didn't think that through, did you?
Except nobody at the DOJ lied to the court.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
You think Flynn is going to sign anything put in front of him? Is that you using your head?
He already addressed this in the filing to the court when he retracted the guilty plea. We've been over this a hundred times. Even a liar, which you are, would give up the gig. You just aren't very bright.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You think Flynn is going to sign anything put in front of him? Is that you using your head?
Look, this is really quite simple - unless the FBI agents were asking him about a crime they suspected him of committing, then he could lie to them with impunity. So what crime were they investigating when they questioned him?

We now have the call transcripts and we know the sanctions did come up but only in the context of Flynn asking Kislyak to request that the Kremlin only reciprocate and not escalate. Which is why the agents' (original) notes were so equivocal over whether or not he actually lied when he denied discussing them. Is asking the Russians to be restrained in their response really talking about Obama's sanctions themselves? I don't think any reasonable person would interpret it that way. The only persons who would are those applying an unreasonably expansive view of what "discussing the sanctions" entails. Which is kind of the SOP of the people involved in the "Crossfire Hurricane" hoax.

So there's that. Then there's the critical element of the 1001 statute itself, which clearly requires that, for a lie to an agent to be a crime, 1) the discussion be in reference to a criminal matter involving the individual being questioned and 2) that the "suspect" know that he is lying for the purpose of evading prosecution of the crime the agent(s) are investigating. So even if there were an underlying crime in that conversation, such as your laughable suggestion of a "Logan Act" violation, if Flynn could have reasonably interpreted their question as referring to discussing the actual Obama sanctions, rather than the foreign policy dynamics surrounding them, then he could honestly say that he did not discuss "the sanctions" themselves.

That I have to keep explaining all of this to you over and over and over again is a complete wast of your time, my time and all of our readers' time. So please, just move on. You were wrong about this from the get go. You are still wrong about this. And, unless you change your views to coincide with reality, you will always be wrong about this.
 
Top