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

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

If the charges are a lie they certainly do. They signed a false statement that was submitted to the court.
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.
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
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.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
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.
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).
 
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).
Flynn admitting he lied to the FBI holds a lot more weight than some FBI agent offering their opinion.
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
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.
ANYONE? ANYONE? Buehler? Buehler?
 

Mick

The Right is always right
The "preponderance of evidence" lies in his confession, and admission of guilt. The opinion of Barr matters not save to the politically naive.
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.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
ANYONE? ANYONE? Buehler? Buehler?
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.
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
Flynn 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 Triumph


The Flynn exoneration and the 'deep state'

Michael Flynn's exoneration


NBC’s Meet the Press “Regrets” It “Inaccurately” Alleged Flynn Exoneration Was Political


Michael Flynn’s exoneration

FBI’s Memo Exonerating Flynn Proves It’s Time To Investigate Comey’s Corrupt ‘Confidential Human Sources’


_________________________

wait, wait... let me guess...on this last one, you're going to tell us that 'exonerating' and 'exonerated' are just completely different, thus proving your point. Right? right?

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Which is not the same as being exonerated, especially in the instance of having confessed and pled guilty.
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.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
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.
Tell me Mickey, just how was it "buliied" out of him? Seems the new "narrative" is on your foot.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Tell me Mickey, just how was it "buliied" out of him? Seems the new "narrative" is on your foot.
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.
 
So is this also a lie? "No threats have been made"...
View attachment 52460
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.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
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.
Your version
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.
did an appeals court throw out Flynn's guilty plea?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
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.
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.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
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.
Flynn signed a document saying he was not threatened. Van Grack quit in disgust.
 
Top