Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
If the charges are a lie they certainly do. They signed a false statement that was submitted to the court.Prosecutors don't commit perjury by bringing charges.
If the charges are a lie they certainly do. They signed a false statement that was submitted to the court.Prosecutors don't commit perjury by bringing charges.
That's the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. BY that logic you could charge every prosecutor with perjury every time the verdict comes out not guilty.If the charges are a lie they certainly do. They signed a false statement that was submitted to the court.
Only when they have an actual reason to suspect that a crime was committed. But in this case they all but admitted in writing that they didn't believe Flynn had committed a crime. This is prosecuted under charges of obstruction of justice, which covers a number of things, including lying to the court (perjury).That's the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. BY that logic you could charge every prosecutor with perjury every time the verdict comes out not guilty.
Face it Flynn is a lying, traitorous POS, and he brings down the whole Republican brand.
Once again he was never convicted of anything.He pled guilty. It's done. All that's left to do is sentence his lying, traitorous, ass.
Flynn admitting he lied to the FBI holds a lot more weight than some FBI agent offering their opinion.Only when they have an actual reason to suspect that a crime was committed. But in this case they all but admitted in writing that they didn't believe Flynn had committed a crime. This is prosecuted under charges of obstruction of justice, which covers a number of things, including lying to the court (perjury).
The "preponderance of evidence" lies in his confession, and admission of guilt. The opinion of Barr matters not save to the politically naive.The preponderance of the evidence points to his innocence.
ANYONE? ANYONE? Buehler? Buehler?for those who feel Flynn wanting to revoke his guilty plea is cause for him to be charged with perjury (ie, he lied about lying, so people think that is perjury)... show me anyone else in US history who was charged with perjury after changign their plea from guilty to innocent. For that matter, show me anyone else in US history who has been charged with perjury after changing a plea from innocent to guilty.
So guilty admissions that were bullied out of clients should always stand up regardless of evidence presented that proves them miscarriages of justice? You need a new narrative, old snapper. That one is old, shot, and was discarded as laughable already.The "preponderance of evidence" lies in his confession, and admission of guilt. The opinion of Barr matters not save to the politically naive.
They believed the Logan Act was legitimate for the one and only time in history with Flynn. Of course, they believed plea changes do as well apparently......but just like the Logan Act they aren't sure how this is different. It dribbles out the minds of the insane.ANYONE? ANYONE? Buehler? Buehler?
flynn exoneratedFlynn was not exonerated, any more than if Trump had given him a pardon or immunity. Did a jury find him not guilty?
Michael Flynn Exoneration Will Turn an American Tragedy Into a TriumphFlynn was not exonerated, any more than if Trump had given him a pardon or immunity. Did a jury find him not guilty?
Supreme Court considers if exonerated people can be ...Which is not the same as being exonerated, especially in the instance of having confessed and pled guilty.
Tell me Mickey, just how was it "buliied" out of him? Seems the new "narrative" is on your foot.So guilty admissions that were bullied out of clients should always stand up regardless of evidence presented that proves them miscarriages of justice? You need a new narrative, old snapper. That one is old, shot, and was discarded as laughable already.
Mueller's cronies threatened to go after his son if he did not plead guilty. That is prosecutorial misconduct. This has been hashed out over and over on this forum. This is really rather simple but the boneheaded part of the electorate cannot except it. You should be embarrassed. We know the prosecutor, Van Grack, was because he fled the case after his misconduct was discovered on a myriad of issues here.Tell me Mickey, just how was it "buliied" out of him? Seems the new "narrative" is on your foot.
What is the point of posting this? Do you think a defendant does not have the right to change his plea?So is this also a lie? "No threats have been made"...
View attachment 52460
Your versionLook, 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.
did an appeals court throw out Flynn's guilty plea?Supreme Court considers if exonerated people can be ...
...
Then, after an appeals court throws out your conviction and the charges against you are dropped, you are told that you aren’t allowed to have your money back — even though the state’s only basis for taking that money from you was an invalid trial judgment.
Apparently you are just full of TDS...Even think progress disagrees with you.
you keelp saying he only pled guilty and confessed because he was threatened. I just gave you a document he signed saying he was not threatened.What is the point of posting this? Do you think a defendant does not have the right to change his plea?
You continue to make arguments based on things that we now know are false, yet you repeat the same things every day.
For the 10th billionth time, everything the DOJ and Flynn's new attorney filed with the court in order to get the case dropped is public. You can read this for yourself.
Stop clinging pathetically to your party line and what your TV tells you.
Flynn signed a document saying he was not threatened. Van Grack quit in disgust.Mueller's cronies threatened to go after his son if he did not plead guilty. That is prosecutorial misconduct. This has been hashed out over and over on this forum. This is really rather simple but the boneheaded part of the electorate cannot except it. You should be embarrassed. We know the prosecutor, Van Grack, was because he fled the case after his misconduct was discovered on a myriad of issues here.
We now know that he was. Cling to that party line, cling to it with all your might and ignore reality.you keelp saying he only pled guilty and confessed because he was threatened. I just gave you a document he signed saying he was not threatened.