You should read what the DoJ wrote. The DoJ says they don't think they can prove flynn lied or the materiality of said 'lie'. 'Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.' None of this has anything to do with Tribe and the judge advocating making withdrawing pleas illegal. The judge will be removed from the case by Roberts if he goes down this moronic path
The DoJ has a guilty plead from Flynn. What the DoJ basically arguing is that it's not material and that continued prosecution doesn't serve justice, which is a joke. And of course, it's completely silly to compare a case of dropping charge by the DoJ to DNA evidence that exonerate.
This is basically our democracy and the rule of law trying to save itself from the incomprehensible amount of damage Bill Bar has done.
He has withdrawn this plea It is clearly lost on you what I posted. Innocent people take guilty pleas all the time. How did you not understand this? The DNA element has nothing to do with this other than proving innocent people take guilty pleas. Tribe and the judge want to make it illegal to withdraw guilty pleas even though you and I both know innocent people take guilty pleas all the time. This is dumb.
He withdrew his plea. I have a friend who was charged with DWI. He plead guilty to illegal turn and got a suspended license. He wasn’t charged with an illegal turn and in fact, never made any turn in front of the arresting officer. They had a weak case and he had Gary Trichter. Best 20k he ever spent.
POOR Innocent people take guilty pleas because of aggressive tactics such as long intergiation sessions without sleep and harsh language along with having **** public defenders. The **** public defender part is probably the largest reason. Public defense attorneys don't want to go to trial often. This was a white collar investigation with a guy who could afford the world's best attorneys. That stuff doesn't happen. You seem upset that the FBI can threaten Flynn with charging his son. Flynn wouldn't be rationally afraid of that threat unless he thought there were legitimate grounds that his son could be arrested because he understands that requires a neutral aribiter such as a judge to sign off on. That threat by the FBI only works if Flynn knows that the the FBI actually has something. That's the reason why we do investigations that go through our actual justice system with actual judges reviewing things like warrants unlike what Trump did which was extort a foerign country to investigate his political rival using purely political operatives such as Rudy G with no neutral aribiter to determine the legitimacy of the investigation which as a result makes the public have complete mistrust in said investigation being fair.
DNA evidence has nothing to do with proving someone innocent, but seeking a withdrawal of his guilty plead has everything to do with proving his innocent. It's clearly lost on you the silliness of comparing the two.
Does your friend have money to afford the best defense attorneys? Was your friend a white collar criminal?
There is no such thing as withdrawing a plea. Its not dumb. Flynn is not innocent. Flynn wasn't an innocent person forced into a lie.
So we are following the 'only guilty people plea guilty 'blunder with 'if you are innocent you shouldn't fear the FBI' blunder? Awesome.
Yes if you can afford the best defense attorneys. Again the situation you describe happens with people who can't afford good attorneys and have to resort to public defenders. That's where unfair plea deals happen. Michael Flynn isn't a dude born from the streets struggling to meet ends meat who can't afford an attorney and was stick with a **** lawyer who encourages the poor uneducated fool into accepting the first plea deal. Michael Flynn is educated and can afford the best lawyers. He's not going to be tricked into a guilty plea when he has those assets. To be fair to public defenders, a lot of times it isn't due to laziness that they settle for plea bargains so often. It's more due to a lack of time as they are often overworked.
Ok, show which of these 41 cases compared to the flynn case, an educated intelligence officer who plead guilty of lying to the FBI three times to two different judges. I'll wait...
Sundance makes an interesting point in this thread. There were no Flynn unmaskings from the time of the Kislyak call 12/28 to the meeting in the Oval Office on 1/4 when the FBI was having internal discussions about how to interview Flynn about the call. So if there was no unmasking, how did they identify Flynn? Only two options, a FISA warrant on Flynn or a criminal warrant on Flynn. But we know from the IG report that Horowitz found no FISA warrants on Flynn. Only other option is a criminal warrant. Unless the FBI was surveilling Flynn without a warrant.....
All of them. They were all offered a deal where they could admit to some crime or face possibly other more dire consequences. Your brain can't compute how this may lead to innocent people pleaing guilty. BTW, do you even know the exact 'lie' flynn supposedly told?
You still don’t understand unmasking do you? The calls intercepted were because they were picking up wire taps with Russian officials. People like Susan Rice would see “American 1” on the transcript talking to a Russian official about US policy and then Susan Rice says I need to see who this person is for national security and that’s how they found out that Flynn was who was on the line conducting shadow foreign policy. This isn’t that difficult guys, and this isn’t a real scandal.
Umm that’s an easy one. Do you? He lied about his dealings with Russians. As noted above, he was undermining foreign policy by communicating with kremlin officials and got Pence caught up in a lie about it. And also as a reminder ... Trump fired Flynn. Inconvenient plot point there for you.
Not surprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Which of the 41 other cases involved a highly educated intelligence officer connected with the president of the United States? To answer your question... https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn...ate-6799dabb-5db1-4169-b5dc-e0968228a0b1.html https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/secrets-flynn-lied-conceal/611377/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinio...ho-thought-michael-flynns-lies-were-material/
I asked for the exact lie and you certainly didn't give it. He also wasn't undermining foreign policy. He told Russia not to escalate in response to Obama sanctions. How does this undermine anything Obama was doing?
