The General Flynn Travesty

8,119 Views | 150 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by bearlyamazing
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thousands of Americans dying every day and you have allowed a con man to misdirect your attention. Flynn is a traitor and I hope he is prosecuted for his crimes when we resume having a somewhat functional executive branch with an independent DOJ.

In the meantime, shouldn't our POTUS be supporting the country in its efforts to combat a deadly virus that is wreaking havoc with our public health and economy? It's not a coincidence that he is trying to dazzle us with unrelated lies because his response has been a chaotic disaster. Don't be surprised if he moves into more outlandish ones when the old ones lose their hold on people.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exclusive: Pence says he'd be "happy" to see Michael Flynn back in government - Axios


https://www.axios.com/mike-pence-flynn-trump-adminisratoin-8b1997f4-121f-43f5-86c7-390b411d6f9c.html?utm_source=nlpc+-+flynn&utm_campaign=hboseason3a.html&utm_medium=email&stream=top
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The facts on Michael Flynn, the FBI, and Bill Barr's bombshell - Axios


https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn-explainer-barr-trump-obamagate-6799dabb-5db1-4169-b5dc-e0968228a0b1.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Make the fat f@uck pardon the traitor. It will be a great addition to tRump's shameful legacy. It can be a separate display item at his Presidential Library in the basement of tRump Tower.




Judge puts off approving US request to dismiss Flynn case


https://apnews.com/b522b9202db3c75525e50c6427c7eed6?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

blungld said:

blungld said:

bearlyamazing said:

Where are the supposed transcripts of her shows? If they're available, it will be exceedingly easy to point out tons of utter bs.
Oh good!

Look, this should be really really easy for you now!

RACHEL MADDOW TRANSCRIPTS


Remember:

Cut and paste a very specific section that shows her lying. Making a false claim, a conspiracy as you put it, without evidence, and doing so as fact.

And then show all the liberals here on the board repeating Rachel as if it is fact.

And then the slam dunk where you show the testimony under oath that shows it was lie all along and Rachel and all of us were either total fools for believing it, or total liars repeating propaganda or partisan misinformation intentionally.

This is what you say happens thousands and thousands of times. I feel like we are getting really close to having our eyes opened.



Here's a pretty good takedown of Maddow's unbalanced and misleading coverage and conspiracy theories:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow

"There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was "curiously well-versed" in "specific Russian talking points", strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia's border.

Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the "continuing operation" the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold."

More here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266

And here - from the intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
I think you've got evidence here that Maddow's show had a slant in favor of "the Russia story," but not that she actively promoted conspiracy theories. Well, you have conservative or far-left pundits' opinions that she did, but this isn't quite the "smoking gun" blungld is looking for.

As far as I can tell, all they've got Maddow doing here is reporting things that came out either from Mueller or some other official government report. Are they tarted-up in a sensationalistic fashion? Very selectively chosen? Yes, sometimes (that's par for the course in cable TV news). I don't think they're lies, though.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

blungld said:

blungld said:

bearlyamazing said:

Where are the supposed transcripts of her shows? If they're available, it will be exceedingly easy to point out tons of utter bs.
Oh good!

Look, this should be really really easy for you now!

RACHEL MADDOW TRANSCRIPTS


Remember:

Cut and paste a very specific section that shows her lying. Making a false claim, a conspiracy as you put it, without evidence, and doing so as fact.

And then show all the liberals here on the board repeating Rachel as if it is fact.

And then the slam dunk where you show the testimony under oath that shows it was lie all along and Rachel and all of us were either total fools for believing it, or total liars repeating propaganda or partisan misinformation intentionally.

This is what you say happens thousands and thousands of times. I feel like we are getting really close to having our eyes opened.



Here's a pretty good takedown of Maddow's unbalanced and misleading coverage and conspiracy theories:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow

"There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was "curiously well-versed" in "specific Russian talking points", strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia's border.

Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the "continuing operation" the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold."

More here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266

And here - from the intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
I think you've got evidence here that Maddow's show had a slant in favor of "the Russia story," but not that she actively promoted conspiracy theories. Well, you have conservative or far-left pundits' opinions that she did, but this isn't quite the "smoking gun" blungld is looking for.

As far as I can tell, all they've got Maddow doing here is reporting things that came out either from Mueller or some other official government report. Are they tarted-up in a sensationalistic fashion? Very selectively chosen? Yes, sometimes (that's par for the course in cable TV news). I don't think they're lies, though.
Yep. It's useless.

They disbelieve the overall disposition or narrative or common sense speculation, and so then they jump to "the facts are wrong" and "she/liberals/whomever is lying" and "it's a conspiracy/hoax/deep state". But they are not lying and they actually do present verifiable independent facts and then start opinions based on where these facts logically point. Where as many of their sources on the right just create whole cloth statements of "fact" that are completely made up. Lies in the simplest terms. And then they sort of try and bend narratives and sound bites around to make a "truthiness" to their facts. Very different.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

blungld said:

blungld said:

bearlyamazing said:

Where are the supposed transcripts of her shows? If they're available, it will be exceedingly easy to point out tons of utter bs.
Oh good!

Look, this should be really really easy for you now!

RACHEL MADDOW TRANSCRIPTS


Remember:

Cut and paste a very specific section that shows her lying. Making a false claim, a conspiracy as you put it, without evidence, and doing so as fact.

And then show all the liberals here on the board repeating Rachel as if it is fact.

And then the slam dunk where you show the testimony under oath that shows it was lie all along and Rachel and all of us were either total fools for believing it, or total liars repeating propaganda or partisan misinformation intentionally.

This is what you say happens thousands and thousands of times. I feel like we are getting really close to having our eyes opened.



Here's a pretty good takedown of Maddow's unbalanced and misleading coverage and conspiracy theories:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow

"There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was "curiously well-versed" in "specific Russian talking points", strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia's border.

Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the "continuing operation" the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold."

More here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266

And here - from the intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
I think you've got evidence here that Maddow's show had a slant in favor of "the Russia story," but not that she actively promoted conspiracy theories. Well, you have conservative or far-left pundits' opinions that she did, but this isn't quite the "smoking gun" blungld is looking for.

As far as I can tell, all they've got Maddow doing here is reporting things that came out either from Mueller or some other official government report. Are they tarted-up in a sensationalistic fashion? Very selectively chosen? Yes, sometimes (that's par for the course in cable TV news). I don't think they're lies, though.
I should have included this link as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/

In any event, I'm no going to quibble with the standard you prose above even if its not the one I would prefer. Just as long as we agree that when people at Fox do the exact same thing - which they do - that's not lying either.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tRump is going to have to pardon the traitor ....it derails his "let someone else do the dirty work so I have plausible deniability" MO.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

sycasey said:

BearGoggles said:

blungld said:

blungld said:

bearlyamazing said:

Where are the supposed transcripts of her shows? If they're available, it will be exceedingly easy to point out tons of utter bs.
Oh good!

Look, this should be really really easy for you now!

RACHEL MADDOW TRANSCRIPTS


Remember:

Cut and paste a very specific section that shows her lying. Making a false claim, a conspiracy as you put it, without evidence, and doing so as fact.

And then show all the liberals here on the board repeating Rachel as if it is fact.

And then the slam dunk where you show the testimony under oath that shows it was lie all along and Rachel and all of us were either total fools for believing it, or total liars repeating propaganda or partisan misinformation intentionally.

This is what you say happens thousands and thousands of times. I feel like we are getting really close to having our eyes opened.



Here's a pretty good takedown of Maddow's unbalanced and misleading coverage and conspiracy theories:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow

"There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was "curiously well-versed" in "specific Russian talking points", strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia's border.

Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the "continuing operation" the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold."

More here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266

And here - from the intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
I think you've got evidence here that Maddow's show had a slant in favor of "the Russia story," but not that she actively promoted conspiracy theories. Well, you have conservative or far-left pundits' opinions that she did, but this isn't quite the "smoking gun" blungld is looking for.

As far as I can tell, all they've got Maddow doing here is reporting things that came out either from Mueller or some other official government report. Are they tarted-up in a sensationalistic fashion? Very selectively chosen? Yes, sometimes (that's par for the course in cable TV news). I don't think they're lies, though.
I should have included this link as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/

In any event, I'm no going to quibble with the standard you prose above even if its not the one I would prefer. Just as long as we agree that when people at Fox do the exact same thing - which they do - that's not lying either.
WHEN they do the same thing, no it's not lying. However, some hosts on Fox have gone into active lying in a way that I don't think Maddow ever has.

Here's a sampling.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

tRump is going to have to pardon the traitor ....it derails his "let someone else do the dirty work so I have plausible deniability" MO.


I freaking LOVE this. The Idiot in Chief's hatchet man who thought he could get away with this has been stopped dead in his tracks and now there is an investigation into whether or not Flynn has committed perjury. That means he will have to talk to DOJ attorneys to find out exactly why Flynn after pleading guilty twice and saying in front of the judge that he had not been coerced into the plea suddenly feels that he should be found not guilty.

Meanwhile, Manafort is out due to COVID 19 even though his facility has not one single report of COVID 19. Strange that Manafort is on home detention and Michael Cohen who was supposed to be released to home detention at the beginning of May has had his move to home detention delayed indefinitely. Could it be that Cohen is working on a tell-all book due for release at the end of the summer?

This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to **** with a federal judge. Stay tuned.
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to **** with a federal judge. Stay tuned.
fixed it for you, Kristen "Good Place" Bell style..
> This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to fork with a federal judge. Stay tuned.
https://en.gravatar.com/cupertinojay
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
smh said:

BearNIt said:

This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to **** with a federal judge. Stay tuned.
fixed it for you, Kristen "Good Place" Bell style..
> This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to fork with a federal judge. Stay tuned.
Thank You, my old fingers just started typing.LOL
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe Fat Billy Barr can get snagged in this net.

Ex-judge asked to evaluate whether to hold Flynn in contempt



https://mol.im/a/8317637
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bro he guilty. Lock him up. Throw away the key.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

bearister said:

tRump is going to have to pardon the traitor ....it derails his "let someone else do the dirty work so I have plausible deniability" MO.


I freaking LOVE this. The Idiot in Chief's hatchet man who thought he could get away with this has been stopped dead in his tracks and now there is an investigation into whether or not Flynn has committed perjury. That means he will have to talk to DOJ attorneys to find out exactly why Flynn after pleading guilty twice and saying in front of the judge that he had not been coerced into the plea suddenly feels that he should be found not guilty.

Meanwhile, Manafort is out due to COVID 19 even though his facility has not one single report of COVID 19. Strange that Manafort is on home detention and Michael Cohen who was supposed to be released to home detention at the beginning of May has had his move to home detention delayed indefinitely. Could it be that Cohen is working on a tell-all book due for release at the end of the summer?

This will teach the Idiot in Chief not to **** with a federal judge. Stay tuned.

Let's both stay tuned. I predict the Flynn case will be dismissed within 60 days, probably much sooner.

The Supreme Court literally just unanimously decided that judges can't request amicus briefing in criminal cases to raise issues the parties are not contesting. United States v. Sineneng-Smith. RBG wrote the unanimous opinion issued May 7, 2020.

And the judge's assertion that a party seeking to withdraw his plea can be charged with contempt/perjury is obscene and absurd. Particularly when new evidence has been introduced.

Even lawfare blog - which hates Flynn and Trump - admits Sullivan is compelled to dismiss the case. Aside from the recent supreme court case on amicus, there is direct binding circuit precedent that says Sullivan must dismiss the case in the current circumstances. U.S. v. Fokker Services. Sullivan is Fokkered.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

Sullivan will either capitulate or be summarily spanked/reversed by an appellate panel. Not even a close call.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" Former justice department officials and legal experts have suggested that Barr is acting more like Trump's personal attorney rather than the top law enforcement official for the federal government. And since the conclusion of Mueller's Russia investigation and even since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic Trump has repeatedly ousted or sidelined critics within the federal government."


William Barr is not done': experts raise concerns about attorney general's legal reach


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/17/william-barr-is-not-done-experts-raise-concerns-about-attorney-generals-legal-reach?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did the Deep State threaten Billy Barr Sinister?

Trump's attorney general dismisses possibility of 'Obamagate' investigations


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/obamagate-investigations-barr-dashes-trump-hopes-obama-biden?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Declassified Susan Rice email describes Comey's concerns with Flynn - Axios


https://www.axios.com/susan-rice-michael-flynn-declassified-email-e54fc276-c8d7-4cd0-a05d-d6e2bd08fada.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top



Please refresh my recollection: Tell me again why Flynny lied to the FBI?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Declassified Susan Rice email describes Comey's concerns with Flynn - Axios


https://www.axios.com/susan-rice-michael-flynn-declassified-email-e54fc276-c8d7-4cd0-a05d-d6e2bd08fada.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top



Please refresh my recollection: Tell me again why Flynny lied to the FBI?


Cuz they tricked him, the poor dear.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

bearister said:

Declassified Susan Rice email describes Comey's concerns with Flynn - Axios


https://www.axios.com/susan-rice-michael-flynn-declassified-email-e54fc276-c8d7-4cd0-a05d-d6e2bd08fada.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top



Please refresh my recollection: Tell me again why Flynny lied to the FBI?


Cuz they tricked him, the poor dear.
Yeah, remember when investigators and judges asked him if he did this and he said yes, and then they said are you sure a bunch of times, and he said yes, and then he offered to work with them in a plea deal in order to lessen the consequences for what he knew he did...that perjury trap was so brilliant. Any totally innocent person at the highest levels of government and state with a life of experience in these matter would have been tricked into making something up out of whole cloth.

And of course the Flynn apologists are just as upset every time any criminal confesses to a crime. Those are all perjury traps too. I am sure they are out there as we speak making sure that not a single young black man has wrongfully confessed to a crime he didn't commit because he felt he had no other choice and is now serving time. Or it just old white guys that are Trump insiders who sell out the country?
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The man was bankrupted and had to sell his home and they threatened to throw his son in prison. Yeah, it's really hard to understand why he'd want it all to stop, especially at the advice of his first legal team. Like no one's ever been strong armed into plea deals to keep things from getting worse.

The feds failed to turn over exculpatory information to both his original lawyers and his present one. That's also part of the reason he's changing his plea. Really hard to understand how that would factor in, too.

Of course it was a perjury trap. They didn't follow protocol in notifying the White House and asking for permission to interview Flynn. Comey bragged about it in an interview to an adoring audience. They lied to Flynn and told him he didn't need a lawyer present, that it was just going to be a casual conversation. They already knew the contents of his call so what's the point of asking him what they already knew then bankrupting him and costing him his house over it if they didn't want to use him to try and get Trump? Obama hated him for publicly opposing the Iran deal and for other stuff. He was public enemy #1 with the Obama administration.

And you clowns call him a traitor for that? For saying he didn't talk about sanctions with Russia, qualifying it with, "You guys already hear all the calls. You'd know the answer, too. But to the best of my recollection, I don't think we did?

You remember the words, "best of my recollection." Hillary Clinton practically coined the term. Over and over again. And got in trouble for nothing.

You people are so disingenuous it's pathetic.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

The man was bankrupted and had to sell his home and they threatened to throw his son in prison. Yeah, it's really hard to understand why he'd want it all to stop, especially at the advice of his first legal team. Like no one's ever been strong armed into plea deals to keep things from getting worse.

The feds failed to turn over exculpatory information to both his original lawyers and his present one. That's also part of the reason he's changing his plea. Really hard to understand how that would factor in, too.

Of course it was a perjury trap. They didn't follow protocol in notifying the White House and asking for permission to interview Flynn. Comey bragged about it in an interview to an adoring audience. They lied to Flynn and told him he didn't need a lawyer present, that it was just going to be a casual conversation. They already knew the contents of his call so what's the point of asking him what they already knew then bankrupting him and costing him his house over it if they didn't want to use him to try and get Trump? Obama hated him for publicly opposing the Iran deal and for other stuff. He was public enemy #1 with the Obama administration.

And you clowns call him a traitor for that? For saying he didn't talk about sanctions with Russia, qualifying it with, "You guys already hear all the calls. You'd know the answer, too. But to the best of my recollection, I don't think we did?

You remember the words, "best of my recollection." Hillary Clinton practically coined the term. Over and over again. And got in trouble for nothing.

You people are so disingenuous it's pathetic.
OK, the pinata has been set up again. Grab your sticks and have at it!

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:


OK, the pinata has been set up again. Grab your sticks and have at it!


https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf

See P. 8-9:


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Traitor. Pure and simple.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know what a plea agreement is, right? If he doesn't plead guilty, he has no plea agreement. The legal fees continue to pile up. He gets himself into a bigger financial hole. His son potentially gets prosecuted like they threatened.

The defense holding back exculpatory evidence alone is enough to change a plea, not matter what the judge said in court. He doesn't get to decide that.

The justice department admitted this case was improperly prosecuted and withdrew their claims. I highly doubt the judge's attempt to not let justice make that determination with their own claim and his decision to bring in another judge who just wrote an anti-Flynn paper just weeks ago as a friend of the court to weigh in will work out well for him.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why did he lie?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Why did he lie?
I thought Trump only liked traitors who don't get caught. Oops.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearlyamazing said:

You know what a plea agreement is, right? If he doesn't plead guilty, he has no plea agreement. The legal fees continue to pile up. He gets himself into a bigger financial hole. His son potentially gets prosecuted like they threatened.

The defense holding back exculpatory evidence alone is enough to change a plea, not matter what the judge said in court. He doesn't get to decide that.

The justice department admitted this case was improperly prosecuted and withdrew their claims. I highly doubt the judge's attempt to not let justice make that determination with their own claim and his decision to bring in another judge who just wrote an anti-Flynn paper just weeks ago as a friend of the court to weigh in will work out well for him.
Ah yes. And EVERY criminal faces this exact same situation so all of their confessions and admission of guilt and plea bargains are also simply forced on them by investigators owing to the cost of trial and bad advice from counsel. There never ever is a true confession, right? Just perjury traps across the board?

Or is it just a hunch you have and a criteria you selectively apply to figures in Trump scandals who the right wing media pushes out misinformation about?

It really is absurd what you argue. The confessed are innocent, the innocent are guilty, don't believe anything that is logical or verifiable or proven in court. I have notebook!. The truth is in my diatribes of convoluted make believe puzzle solving. The hidden conspiracy I can't prove makes so much more sense!
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

bearlyamazing said:

You know what a plea agreement is, right? If he doesn't plead guilty, he has no plea agreement. The legal fees continue to pile up. He gets himself into a bigger financial hole. His son potentially gets prosecuted like they threatened.

The defense holding back exculpatory evidence alone is enough to change a plea, not matter what the judge said in court. He doesn't get to decide that.

The justice department admitted this case was improperly prosecuted and withdrew their claims. I highly doubt the judge's attempt to not let justice make that determination with their own claim and his decision to bring in another judge who just wrote an anti-Flynn paper just weeks ago as a friend of the court to weigh in will work out well for him.
Ah yes. And EVERY criminal faces this exact same situation so all of their confessions and admission of guilt and plea bargains are also simply forced on them by investigators owing to the cost of trial and bad advice from counsel. There never ever is a true confession, right? Just perjury traps across the board?

Or is it just a hunch you have and a criteria you selectively apply to figures in Trump scandals who the right wing media pushes out misinformation about?

It really is absurd what you argue. The confessed are innocent, the innocent are guilty, don't believe anything that is logical or verifiable or proven in court. I have notebook!. The truth is in my diatribes of convoluted make believe puzzle solving. The hidden conspiracy I can't prove makes so much more sense!
You tell us all smart guy. Do you deny that he was nearly bankrupted and had to sell his home? Do you deny his son was threatened with imprisonment without a plea bargain by Flynn? Do you think sticking to a plea bargain de facto makes him guilty? Do you not believe in due process? Tell us all exactly what the purpose of asking him a question they already knew the answer to then wrecking him financially and threatening his family if it's not a perjury trap? Are you denying exculpatory information was withheld after multiple requests in violation of the law? Are you denying they told him it would be a casual conversation and he didn't need a lawyer or that they didn't go through the proper channels to interview him? These things are all public record that no one who prosecuted him now denies.

You and people like you here don't deal in facts. You try and marginalize and dismiss those who bring facts you don't like by calling them crazy conspiracy theories. That's just intellectually lazy and deceptive. Yet I expect nothing more from you. You're not interested one bit in the truth.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not a perjury trap if you tell the truth. As for your "facts", the right wing media/blogosphere have trotted out so many preposterous conspiracy theories only to abandoned them a few weeks later, that it's hard to believe anything from those sources. If they told me the sun is rising in the east, I'd have to go outside and double check that. Before you cry "Left wing media!", I'll agree they aren't much better.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

It's not a perjury trap if you tell the truth. As for your "facts", the right wing media/blogosphere have trotted out so many preposterous conspiracy theories only to abandoned them a few weeks later, that it's hard to believe anything from those sources. If they told me the sun is rising in the east, I'd have to go outside and double check that. Before you cry "Left wing media!", I'll agree they aren't much better.
The left lost its mind in 2017 according to the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/


dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

It's not a perjury trap if you tell the truth. As for your "facts", the right wing media/blogosphere have trotted out so many preposterous conspiracy theories only to abandoned them a few weeks later, that it's hard to believe anything from those sources. If they told me the sun is rising in the east, I'd have to go outside and double check that. Before you cry "Left wing media!", I'll agree they aren't much better.
The left lost its mind in 2017 according to the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/





Your article says the right has been taken over by entertainers and provacateurs and asks if the same could happen to the left. I guess the joke is on you.
An old white dude
Page 4 of 5
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.