Mike Flynn...what's the deal?

Honest question. What is more likely:

-That Flynn was lying to Pence about contacts with the Russians which was regarding incoming Trump policy on Sanctions

or

-Pence was actually lying to the media and he knew about the Trump admin's contacts with Russians like everyone else, and they just said Flynn lied to Pence to try and save face for the VP?

Pence managed the Trump transition. It's his name on the Flynn documentation on his staffing and coming up to to speed in the transition process. I for one find it hard to believe he wasn't in on the knowledge of the Russian contacts. Especially if you believe Trump that "he did nothing wrong" and what he was doing was normal foreign policy.

So either Trump and his supporters are right that there was nothing wrong with what Flynn was doing .... and in that case it shows the incompetence of the Trump admin that the VICE PRESIDENT is not privy to huge foreign policy decisions, or everyone is lying, and even in the most charitable scenario, your NSA is then conducting MAJOR foreign policy without anyone else knowing about it.... which is a big freaking problem.

There is no other way of evaluating the facts of the situation. I guess either is plausible, but either one has to be true. Either Flynn was conducting foreign policy on his own without his own senior officials in the administration knowing he was doing it, or everyone is lying.

 

Dude how is anything spelled out clearly, he says he cannot recall what he said with the Ambassador and all of this is his side of the story.

So now we should believe Flynn?

The guy who was on the payroll of Turkey while he was being considered for a top post in the cabinet and did not tell anybody?

 

He was already tried on this. Found guilty. And the document posted (essentially, his new version of his story) doesn't really change anything. And its not me "budging" or not... I have been consistent on this... he lied, admitted to lying, and was fired for lying. You obviously don't have problems with people in your government lying when it suits your political view.

 

George Cormer responds to fred

 

I haven't devoted much effort reading up on this because of people trying to seize the narrative, but I do want to know to what extent the FBI overreached like they did with Carter Page. This is what I'll believe so far.
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/so-did-flynn-lie-in-court/ So, Did Flynn Lie in Court?
The Barr DOJ's attempt to retcon the Flynn case has created a major problem for Flynn.

 

Nice.

This really should put all arguments to bed.

Note, this was the second time Flynn pled to these charges. He did so originally in December of 2017. The following is from December of 2018.

(MICHAEL FLYNN, DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, SWORN)

THE COURT: All right. And I will inform you, sir, that any false answers will get you in more trouble. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes

THE COURT: You have to keep your voice up. If you don’t understand my question, please tell me and I’ll rephrase it. Most importantly, you may consult with your attorney privately before answering my questions or at any point in time. Should you want the opportunity to attempt to withdraw your plea, I will afford you that opportunity. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that by maintaining your guilty plea and continuing with sentencing, you will give up your right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any concerns that you entered your guilty plea before you or your attorneys were able to review information that could have been helpful to your defense?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: At the time of your January 24th, 2017 interview with the FBI, were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a federal crime?

THE DEFENDANT: I was not — I was aware.

THE COURT: You were aware?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.

THE COURT: Your sentencing memorandum also states that you pled guilty before certain, quote, revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January the 24th interview were themselves being investigated for misconduct, end quote. Do you seek an opportunity to withdraw your plea in light of those revelations?

THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Now, again, at any time — I should have said this before I started asking questions, but knowing what I was going to do, to have this colloquy with you, I’ve made arrangements for a private room for you and your attorneys to talk about any of these questions and your answers. So, even though I’ve taken a number of answers from you, if you want — if you want that opportunity to speak privately with your attorneys, then I’ll certainly afford you that opportunity as well. Would you like to do that?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Are you satisfied with the services provided by your attorneys?

THE DEFENDANT: I am.

THE COURT: In certain special circumstances, I have over the years appointed an independent attorney to speak with a defendant, review the defendant’s file, and conduct necessary research to render a second opinion for a defendant. Do you want the Court to consider appointing an independent attorney for youin this case to give you a second opinion?

THE DEFENDANT: I do not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you feel that you were competent and capable of entering into a guilty plea when you pled guilty on December 1st, 2017

THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand the nature of the charges against you and the consequences of pleading guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: I do understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And that was covered extensively by Judge Contreras. I’ve read the transcript. Are you continuing to accept responsibility for your false statements?

THE DEFENDANT: I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you still want to plead guilty, or do you want me to postpone this matter, give you a chance to speak with your attorneys further, either in the courtroom or privately at their office or elsewhere, and pick another day for a status conference? And I’m happy to do that.

THE DEFENDANT: I appreciate that, but no, Your Honor.

The transcript shifts into a lengthy interchange with Flynn’s lawyer, Kelner. The whole thing is at the link above, but I would note the following:

THE COURT: Do you wish to seek any additional information
before moving forward to sentencing?

MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you believe the FBI had a legal obligation to warn Mr. Flynn that lying to the FBI was a federal crime?

MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is it your contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI?

MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you believe Mr. Flynn’s rights were violated by the fact that he did not have a lawyer present for the interview?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you believe his rights were violated by the fact that he may have been dissuaded from having a lawyer present for the interview?

MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The sentencing memorandum also states that Mr. Flynn pled guilty before certain, quote, revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January 24th interview were, themselves, being investigated for misconduct,” end quote. Is it your contention that any misconduct by a member of the FBI raises any degree of doubt that Mr. Flynn intentionally lied to the FBI?

MR. KELNER: No, Your Honor.

 

Already been addressed. Trying to make withdrawing pleas illegal is insane and would get over-turned unanimously by the supreme court. Especially given the evidence that tons of innocent people take guilty pleas. The judge knows this. His goal is to keep the case going as long as he can and hope Trump loses the election. The supreme court should step in and remove him.

 

See if you missremember what you say under oath, then you can flat out claim you were coerced in the future in order to cash out on the free for all buffet Trump advisors get for selling their souls.

 

What?

Do you actually think this is a thing?

 

of course it is. Supreme Court can remove a federal judge from a case .

 

Imagine the precedent that would send if the Supreme Court was so political they would step in and judge shop political prosecutions to judges that align to their party.

If a judge is compromised, does something incredibly unethical, or commits illegal acts, it would be Congress that impeaches the judge through that thorough process which essentially tries the case. There has been 15 impeachments of federal judges. The Supreme Court essentially taking that power from the legislative branch, and absorbing it themselves would be one of the most destructive things to a Democracy I could see happening.

I'm not sure if you suggested the Supreme Court taking action against Sullivan or not, but if you did, it's further evidence that your party ideology is highly hostile to Democracy & openly advocates for Autocracy.

 

Judge Sullivan has called Flynn a 'traitor to his country'. He is trying a case that neither side wants tried (Flynn or the DoJ). He has called for an amicus brief by the guy who wrote this despite the judge describing amicus briefs as inappropriate earlier in the trial. If he actually wants to try and make withdrawing a plea illegal then of course you remove him. He's clearly biased. Remove him.

 

That's just not the whole truth about the context of this case, and you know better. The Judge has been given a sh$tshow spectacle of a case, and has had politics thrusted on HIM... not the other way around. Flynn was the one who was getting a guilty plea cooperation deal, and was about to be given a sweetheart deal with only community service and probation, and HE AND HIS LAWYERS inexplicably went on a rant in their sentencing documents about Deep State conspiracy.

FLYNN OWNS the injection of politics, and he created a situation where the Judge needed to remind everyone what got Flynn in that courtroom in the first place.

THEN THE DOJ AG OWNS the injection of politics by trying to be cute in replacing prosecutors, and meddling in the sentencing.

WHAT THE F IS SULLIVAN SUPPOSED TO DO??? It's his court room. Outside forces are trying to make a mockery of the court system, and he is simply doing what any good judge should do.... slow down the process to ensure the right decisions are made, and make sure everyone understands why the DOJ, and Flynn are doing what they are doing.

Sullivan has done nothing wrong here, and certainty there is ZERO case for Impeachment, and again it would be insane for the Supreme Court to destroy their credibility to judge shop a case because a Judge isn't rolling over for obvious political interference by a highly political AG who is a servant of the president.

 

What in the world are you talking about.

1.) Flynn is a traitor to his country.
2.) No case is being tried??? The case is over. The only thing left is sentencing.
3.) The Judge gave Flynn the opportunity to withdraw his plea and explicitly told him that if he lied he would be in further trouble.

Clearly biases LOLOLOLOLOLOL...yea, clearly biased towards the law.

 

How does that work exactly?

I have never heard of the Supreme court having that power or any court for that matter.

I think Judges can only recuse themselves.

 

THE COURT: Do you feel that you were competent and capable of entering into a guilty plea when you pled guilty on December 1st, 2017

THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand the nature of the charges against you and the consequences of pleading guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: I do understand, Your Honor.

 

flynn's team today asked the Court of Appeals to do just that.

 

Time for Roberts to put his money where his mouth is, if they even decide to hear the case

 

Guessing when you are guilty, desperate times call for desperate measures...